You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law
, , , ,

LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON A DANGEROUS CONDITION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, APPELLANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DENIED A MOTION ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY A PARTY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action properly survived summary judgment. The Second Department noted the court should not have, sua sponte, denied appellants’ motion on the ground the deposition transcripts were inadmissible because that issue was not raised. Plaintiff was working in the bottom of a hole which was muddy from heavy rain and littered with boulders and rocks. Plaintiff was injured when he allegedly slipped and fell because of the mud. The Second Department held that the causes of action were based upon a dangerous condition, not the method and manner of work, and the appellants did not demonstrate they lacked actual or constructive notice of the condition:

Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty imposed on owners, contractors, and their agents to provide workers with a safe place to work … . There are “two broad categories of actions that implicate the provisions of Labor Law § 200” … . The first category involves worker injuries arising out of alleged dangerous or defective conditions on the premises where the work is performed … . In those circumstances, “[f]or liability to be imposed on the property owner, there must be evidence showing that the property owner either created a dangerous or defective condition, or had actual or constructive notice of it without remedying it within a reasonable time” … . The second category of actions under Labor Law § 200 involves injuries arising from the method and manner of the work … . A property owner will be held liable under this category only if it possessed the authority to supervise or control the means and methods of the work … .

Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the plaintiff’s accident arose from a dangerous premises condition, not from the method and manner of the work. Where a plaintiff alleges that he or she was injured at a work site as a result of a dangerous premises condition, a property owner’s liability under Labor Law § 200 and for common-law negligence rests upon whether the property owner created the condition, or had actual or constructive notice of it and a reasonable amount of time within which to correct the condition … . Modugno v Bovis Lend Lease Interiors, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 03508, Second Dept 6-24-20

 

PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1), LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE, EVEN IF PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN WHERE HE WAS AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment against the general contractor (Sweeney) on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action in this falling object case, even if plaintiff was not supposed to be in the area when he was struck (comparative negligence is inapplicable). Plaintiff was also entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence claims against the subcontractor (Structure Tech) whose employee caused the object to fall. There was a question of fact whether the Structure Tech employee was instructed by Sweeney to cut the object which fell, which would make Sweeney liable for the Labor Law 200 and negligence causes of action as well:

Plaintiff should have been awarded summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim as against Sweeney because there was no overhead protection provided to plaintiff … . Thus even if, as Structure Tech’s superintendent testified, plaintiff was in an area of the worksite where he was not supposed to be at the time of his accident, this would at most constitute comparative negligence which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . …

Plaintiff also should have been awarded summary judgment on his Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims as against Structure Tech. As a subcontractor and, therefore, the statutory agent of the general contractor, Structure Tech may be held liable pursuant to Labor Law § 200 and under common-law negligence for injuries caused by a dangerous condition that it caused or created or of which it had actual or constructive notice … . Since no party disputes that a Structure Tech employee was responsible for dislodging the baluster and allowing it to fall and strike plaintiff, Structure Tech is liable to plaintiff under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence.

However, an issue of fact exists as to Sweeney’s liability to plaintiff under these claims based on the testimony of Structure Tech’s superintendent that it was, in fact, Sweeney’s superintendent who instructed Structure Tech to cut the baluster that ultimately struck plaintiff. If credited, this testimony could support a finding that Sweeney actually exercised supervisory control over the worksite so as to trigger liability under these claims … . Hewitt v NY 70th St. LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 03280, First Dept 6-11-20

 

UNSUPPORTED CEILING COLLAPSED DURING DEMOLITION; PLAINTIFF PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s summary judgment motion on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly granted where an unsupported ceiling collapsed during demolition:

Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim arising from the collapse of a ceiling that was not braced or shored during demolition operations. Regardless of whether the entire ceiling or only a portion of it collapsed, it was not the intended target of demolition at the time of the accident … . At the time of the accident, upon his supervisor’s instruction, plaintiff had descended from the ladder upon which he was working and walked under the ceiling that collapsed in order to inspect or remove a sprinkler head. Plaintiff’s supervisor acknowledged the ceiling would not have collapsed on plaintiff had he remained on the ladder. Moreover, because no safety devices were provided to brace or shore the ceiling, the fact that plaintiff may have pulled on it with a hook while inspecting or attempting to remove the sprinkler head at most amounts to comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . Sinchi v HWA 1290 III LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 03176, First Dept 6-4-20

 

, , ,

RARE CASE WHERE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION WAS APPROPRIATELY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined this was a rare case where summary judgment was appropriate on a Labor Law 200, common-law negligence cause of action:

Here, PSJV, the entities responsible for site cleanliness and trade coordination, at a time when the project was open to the elements, covered a recessed area of the third floor, where rainwater regularly collected, with non-waterproof planking, and never inspected it for water accumulation. Further, PSJV did not warn plaintiff or his employer that he was working under the recessed area, and when he drilled into the second floor ceiling to affix electrical equipment, the sludgy, oily water poured down onto him, causing him to lose his balance and injure himself. Thus, plaintiffs made a prima showing that the accident occurred due to a defective condition on the premises of which PSJV had actual notice, having caused and created it … . In response, PSJV failed to adduce credible evidence that anyone else, including plaintiff electrician, negligently caused the accident … . Langer v MTA Capital Constr. Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 03171, First Dept 6-3-20

 

, , ,

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD AND, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED RELIEF NOT REQUESTED IN THE MOTION PAPERS, INCLUDING THE APPLICATION OF THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have, sua sponte, searched the record to grant relief that was not requested in this Labor Law 200, 240(1), 241(6), negligence action. Plaintiff was injured when a portion of a ceiling fell causing a scaffold to collapse on him. The judge should not have granted summary judgment on a negligence cause of action which was not included in the motions, and should not have granted summary judgment on a res ipsa loquitur theory:

While it is well settled that the Supreme Court has the authority to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party with respect to an issue that was the subject of a motion before the court (see CPLR 3212[b] …), here, the court, in effect, searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the movant with respect to an issue that was not the subject of the motion before the court. …

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies when the injury-causing event (1) is “of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence”; (2) “[is] caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant”; and (3) was not “due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff” … . Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, this is not one of “the rarest of res ipsa loquitur cases” where the plaintiff’s circumstantial evidence is so convincing and the defendant’s response so weak that the inference of the defendant’s negligence is inescapable … . Although the first and third elements may be satisfied in the plaintiff’s favor, based upon the limited record, this standard was not met as to the second element. Even though courts do not generally apply the requirement of exclusive control as it is literally stated or as a fixed, mechanical or rigid rule … , the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the plaster ceiling is “structural” and, therefore, the obligation of [defendant] Lexington to maintain pursuant to the terms of the lease it entered into with [defendant] Dover. Moreover, the papers do not establish the plaintiff’s entitlement to summary judgment against Dover on this issue, which was raised by the court sua sponte as against Dover, and was not the subject of the plaintiff’s motion as against Dover. Zhigue v Lexington Landmark Props., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 02948, Second Dept 5-20-20

 

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS TOLD TO PAINT ONLY WHERE HE COULD REACH WITHOUT THE LADDER IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was evidence plaintiff was told only to paint areas he could reach without the ladder. Plaintiff fell from the ladder:

Plaintiff was injured when he fell from a ladder while painting an apartment in a building owned by defendant. The testimony of plaintiff’s employer, that he had specifically instructed plaintiff only to paint areas he could reach and not to use the ladder, raises triable issues as to whether plaintiff’s duties were expressly limited to work that did not expose him to an elevation-related hazard within the purview of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Orellana v Mo-Hak Assoc., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 02867, First Dept 5-14-20

 

LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE ACCIDENT WAS RELATED TO MATERIAL ON THE FLOOR WHICH CAUSED THE WHEELS OF A CART PLAINTIFF WAS PUSHING TO GET STUCK; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE FLOOR WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was pushing a cart when the wheels got stuck. When a coworker kept pulling the cart plaintiff hand was pinned and the tip of his index finger was severed. Plaintiff alleged there were steel rods (which were integral to the work) and garbage on the floor:

A defendant will be found to have “failed to establish that they lacked constructive notice of the dangerous condition that caused plaintiff’s injury, [if] they submitted no evidence of the cleaning schedule for the work site or when the site had last been inspected before the accident” … .

Here, plaintiff alleges that there was “garbage” as well as rods on the floor that impeded the cart’s movement. Bravo’s [the builder’s] contract explicitly required it to look for dangerous and hazardous conditions on a daily basis, and to keep the workplace safe. However, since Bravo submitted no evidence as to its inspection and cleaning schedule of the worksite, this claim must be reinstated.

It is not relevant whether the rods on which the cart got stuck were an open and obvious condition that plaintiff could have seen, since that issue raises a question of plaintiff’s comparative negligence and does not bear on defendant’s own liability … . Spencer v Term Fulton Realty Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 02855, First Dept 5-14-20

 

WIRES WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO TRIP AND FALL WERE INTEGRAL TO THE WORK BEING PERFORMED AND CANNOT THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED DEBRIS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should have been dismissed. Plaintiff fell when his foot became entangled in electrical wires hanging from the ceiling. The wires were integral to the work being performed. Therefore the Industrial Code provision prohibiting the accumulation of debris did not apply. However the common law negligence (dangerous condition) cause of action properly survived summary judgment:

To prevail on a cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6), a plaintiff “must set forth a violation of a specific rule or regulation promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department of Labor” … . Here, the plaintiff alleged a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2), which requires that “[t]he parts of floors, platforms and similar areas where persons work or pass shall be kept free from accumulations of dirt and debris and from scattered tools and materials and from sharp projections insofar as may be consistent with the work being performed.” However, 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2) is “inapplicable [where] the material over which [a plaintiff] alleges he [or she] tripped was integral to the work being performed” … . Martinez v 281 Broadway Holdings, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 02773, Second Dept 5-13-20

 

LABOR LAW 200, 241(6) AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS WORKPLACE SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s Labor law 200, 241(6)  and common law negligence causes action properly survived summary judgment in this workplace slip and fall case. Plaintiff fell going down a staircase and there was evidence that dust and perhaps paint was on the stairway associated with sanding and painting the walls. Although the stairway was not a passageway pursuant to the Industrial Code, there was a question of fact whether the stairway was a work area, even though no work was being done at the time of the fall. The defendant responsible for cleaning up, Magnetic, could be liable as a statutory agent:

… [P]laintiff’s identification of the cause of his slip and fall is not merely speculation. He testified that after he fell down the stairs, the steps he could see from the bottom of the staircase were dusty, his clothes were dusty, and his jacket was wet with paint. Further, there is testimony in the record that the walls of the stairway had been sanded and painted before plaintiff’s accident. * * *

Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(2) may serve as a predicate for plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claim, as it applies to slipping as well as tripping hazards … . …

Industrial Code § 23-1.7(d) is applicable to plaintiff’s accident. While a staircase used to provide access to a job site is not a passageway or other working surface within the meaning of the provision unless it is the sole means of access … , the provision is applicable if the staircase was a work area … . …

Insofar as Magnetic was delegated authority for the injury-producing work, retained subcontractors to perform the injury-producing work, and was responsible for clean-up at the site, it may be held liable under Labor Law § 241(6) as a statutory agent … . Ohadi v Magnetic Constr. Group Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 02278, First Dept 4-16-20

 

FALL AFTER STEPPING ON LOOSE PIPES NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1); LABOR LAW 200 AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action based upon plaintiff’s fall when he stepped on a pile of loose pipes was properly dismissed. However the Labor Law 200 cause of action and the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action against some of the defendants should not have been dismissed:

The court correctly dismissed the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, as that statute does not cover a fall allegedly caused by stepping on a pile of unsecured pipes on the floor of a construction site … . …

The Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims should not be dismissed as against UA, Independent Mechanical, Intel Plumbing, and WeWork. The cause of plaintiff’s accident was not the manner in which his work was performed but a dangerous condition on the premises, i.e., the loose pipes that had been laid on the floor directly in front of a doorway … . …

… [T]he record does not support the summary dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim as against the UA and 401 Park defendants. Plaintiff’s testimony that his fall was caused by a pile of loose pipes obstructing the doorway presents an issue of fact as to whether the accident was caused by a tripping hazard in a passageway (Industrial Code [12 NYCRR] § 23-1.7[e][1] … ). There is also an issue of fact as to whether the accident was caused by a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2), since part of the floor where workers worked or passed was not kept free from scattered tools or materials … . In addition, there is an issue of fact as to whether the unsecured pipes, which were allegedly piled about two feet high directly in front of the doorway, were safely stored pursuant to 12 NYCRR 23-2.1(a)(1) … . Armental v 401 Park Ave. S. Assoc., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 02154, First Dept 4-2-20

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy