You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law

PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN REPAIR WORK WHEN A PERMANENT LADDER IN AN ELEVATOR SHAFT ALLEGEDLY VIBRATED CAUSING HIM TO FALL; EVEN IF A HARNESS WERE AVAILABLE, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A DEFENSE TO A LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was engaged in a long-term project to repair elevator cables which were striking objects in the elevator shaft. While using a ladder that was permanently affixed in the shaft when it allegedly vibrated causing him to fall:

… [W]hile an unsecured ladder that moves or shifts constitutes a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240(1) … , the ladder from which plaintiff fell was secured to the structure, and, other than allegedly vibrating, it did not move, shift or sway. Under the circumstances, an issue of fact exists whether the secured, permanently affixed ladder that allegedly vibrated provided proper protection for plaintiff.

The record demonstrates, contrary to defendants’ contention, that at the time of his accident plaintiff was performing not routine maintenance but repair work, which falls within the protective ambit of Labor Law § 240(1) … . …

Defendants failed to establish that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident, as they submitted no evidence that plaintiff knew that he was supposed to use a harness for climbing ladders or that he disregarded “specific instructions” to do so … . Further, to the extent the ladder failed to provide proper protection, plaintiff’s failure to use a harness amounts at most to comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . Kehoe v 61 Broadway Owner LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 01391, First Dept 2-27-20

 

, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER WALKING ON THE REBAR GRID WAS AN INHERENT RISK OF THE JOB AND WHETHER THE GRID WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION PRECLUDED A DIRECTED VERDICT IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined questions of fact for the jury precluded the directed verdict (CPLR 4401) for the defendants in this Labor Law 200 action. Plaintiff was working as a surveyor at a construction site. He was walking across a rebar grid when one of his legs fell through. There were questions of fact whether walking on the rebar grid was an inherent risk of his job and whether the grid was a dangerous condition. Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the directed verdict (CPLR 4404) should have been granted:

Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or general contractor to provide construction site workers with a safe place to work … . The duty, however, is subject to recognized exceptions … . It does not extend to hazards which are part of or inherent in the very work which the contractor is to perform, or where the contractor is engaged for the specific purpose of repairing the defect … .

Here, in directing a verdict in favor of the defendants on the issue of liability, the Supreme Court improperly decided the factual questions of whether traversing an uncovered rebar grid was an inherent risk in the injured plaintiff’s work as a surveyor, and whether the uncovered rebar grid was a dangerous condition under the circumstances presented. The record demonstrates that the plaintiffs’ evidence made out a prima facie case, and that disputed factual issues existed which should have been resolved by the jury. Since the court failed to draw “every favorable inference” in favor of the plaintiffs and because the court resolved disputed issues of fact … , the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new trial on the issue of liability. Vitale v Astoria Energy II, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 01381, Second Dept 2-26-20

 

GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE ANY SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND THEREFORE WAS NOT LIABLE FOR AN INJURY ARISING FROM THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK FOR A SUBCONTRACTOR; LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 200 action against the general contractor, El Sol. should have been dismissed. The accident involved the manner in which the work was done, not a dangerous condition. Plaintiff was employed by a subcontractor. Because El Sol did not exercise any supervisory control over plaintiff’s work, El Sol was not liable:

“Cases involving Labor Law § 200 fall into two broad categories: namely, those where workers are injured as a result of dangerous or defective premises conditions at a work site, and those involving the manner in which the work is performed” … . Where “a claim arises out of alleged defects or dangers arising from a subcontractor’s methods or materials, recovery against the owner or general contractor cannot be had unless it is shown that the party to be charged exercised some supervisory control over the operation” … . “A defendant has the authority to supervise or control the work for purposes of Labor Law § 200 when that defendant bears the responsibility for the manner in which the work is performed” … . “[M]ere general supervisory authority at a work site for the purpose of overseeing the progress of the work and inspecting the work product is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200” … .

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, El Sol established, prima facie, that the accident did not arise from a dangerous or defective premises condition but from the method and manner of the work … . El Sol further established that it did not exercise supervision or control over the performance of the work giving rise to the accident … . Boody v El Sol Contr. & Constr. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 01140, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN THE CEILING COLLAPSED WHILE HE WAS TAKING OUT WALLS, THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) ,241(6) and 200 causes of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was in the process of taking down two bathroom walls when the ceiling collapsed:

To prevail on a Labor Law § 240(1) claim based on an injury resulting from the failure of a completed and permanent building structure (in this case, the collapse of a ceiling), a plaintiff must show that the failure of the structure in question was a foreseeable risk of the task he was performing, creating a need for protective devices of the kind enumerated in the statute … .

Here, there are issues of fact as to whether the ceiling was in such an advanced state of disrepair due to water damage that plaintiff’s work on the bathroom walls exposed him to a foreseeable risk of injury from an elevation-related hazard, the fall of the ceiling, and whether the absence of a type of protective device enumerated under Labor Law § 240(1) was a proximate cause of his injuries. Because the evidence of water stains on the bathroom ceiling could provide constructive notice of a dangerous condition, summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims was also improperly granted. …

Defendants failed to show that plaintiff was not engaged in demolition work to trigger Labor Law § 241(6). His task was part of a larger project that included the demolition of interior walls, “which altered the structural integrity of the building'”( … Industrial Code § 23-1.4[b][16]). Issues of fact exist as to whether Industrial Code § 23-3.3(b)(3) and (c), pertaining to demolition, were violated or whether any such violation was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Clemente v 205 W. 103 Owners Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 01117, First Dept 2-18-20

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED ATTEMPTING TO ENTER A BUILDING FROM A SCAFFOLD THROUGH A WINDOW CUT-OUT; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE THAT METHOD OF ENTERING THE BUILDING WAS PROHIBITED BY DEFENDANTS; THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing (modifying) the Appellate Division, over a three-judge dissent, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment should not have been granted in this Labor Law 240(1) action. Plaintiff was injured when he fell attempting to enter a building from a scaffold through a window cut-out. Although there was evidence of a standing order prohibiting use of that method for entering the building, other workers used that method:

A defendant has no liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) when plaintiffs: (1) “had adequate safety devices available,” (2) “knew both that” the safety devices “were available and that [they were] expected to use them,” (3) “chose for no good reason not to do so,” and (4) would not have been injured had they “not made that choice” … . Here, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiff knew he was expected to use the safety devices provided to him, despite the apparent accepted practice of entering the building through the window cut-outs from the scaffolding. Indeed, as the Appellate Division dissent concluded, the Appellate Division majority (and the dissent here) “ignore[] the evidence in the record that workers on this job site used the scaffold to go through window cut-outs to enter the interior of the building and that the scaffold was clearly inadequate for that purpose” … .

Given defendants’ purported acquiescence to this alleged practice, the general contractor’s standing order directing workers not to enter the building through the cut-outs is insufficient to entitle defendants to summary judgment … . Further, the accepted practice could have negated the normal and logical inclination to use the scaffold, stairs, or hoist instead of the cut-outs … . Finally, in context and given the other conflicting evidence in the record, a factfinder should determine whether plaintiff’s statement that he “wasn’t supposed to pass through there” unambiguously establishes that he knew he was expected to use the safety devices. Biaca-Neto v Boston Rd. II Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 01116, CtApp 2-18-20

 

INJURY CAUSED BY CEMENT BOARDS FALLING FROM AN A-FRAME CART COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined injury caused by cement boards falling from an A-frame cart was covered under Labor Law 240 (1):

The evidence shows that plaintiff and his coworkers were moving an A-frame cart, loaded with approximately 16 cement boards measuring 4′ x 8′ in dimension and weighing approximately 100 pounds each, when its wheel became stuck and the cart would not move. Plaintiff and his coworkers then pushed and pulled the cart to free it, and, in the process, the cart and the boards suddenly tipped, with the boards landing on plaintiff’s left leg. Given the weight and height of the cement boards on the A-frame cart, the elevation differential was within the purview of the statute … . Touray v HFZ 11 Beach St. LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 01029, First Dept 2-13-20

 

DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTION MANAGER WAS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER AND WAS THEREFORE LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURY PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240 (1); THE ARTICULATING LIFT USED BY PLAINTIFF WAS A SAFETY DEVICE WHICH FAILED TO ADEQUATELY PROTECT AGAINST AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant which entered a construction management agreement with the Port Authority was a statutory agent of the Port Authority and was liable for plaintiff’s injury pursuant to Labor Law 240 (1). Plaintiff was injured when he lost control of an articulating lift when backing down a ramp:

Plaintiffs demonstrated that defendants can be held liable as a statutory “agent” of the Port Authority based on the contract documents that they submitted on the motion. Those documents impose not only the responsibility to coordinate the work but also a broad responsibility for “overall job site safety,” including the implementation of the Port Authority’s Safety Health and Environmental Program, as well as measures to ensure worker safety, thereby granting the construction manager “the ability to control the activity which brought about the injury” … .

Moreover, plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim. As the motion court found, plaintiff’s testimony established prima facie that the articulating lift was a safety device and that it’s failure to protect him from the elevation-related risk that he faced was the proximate cause of his injury. Lind v Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y., 2020 NY Slip Op 01026, First Dept 2-13-20

 

DECEDENT’S WORK AS A WELDER NOT A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a one-sentence memorandum, determined the plaintiff was not engaged in an activity covered by Labor Law 240 (1) when he was injured:

Decedent’s work as a welder during the “normal manufacturing process” of fabricating rotor components for air preheaters did not involve “erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing” of a building or structure (Jock v Fien , 80 NY2d 965, 968 [1992]; Labor Law § 240 [1]).  Preston v APCH, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 01000, Ct App 2-13-20

 

, ,

JUDGE PROPERLY SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AWARDING $0 FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE VERDICT AS INCONSISTENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly set aside the verdict awarding $0 for pain and suffering in this Labor Law 240 (1) action, despite plaintiff’s failure to object to the verdict as inconsistent:

… [P]laintiff’s failure to object to the jury’s award of $0 for both past and future pain and suffering as inconsistent with the jury’s awards for past and future lost earnings and future medical expenses did not preclude the court from deciding whether ” the jury’s failure to award damages for pain and suffering [wa]s contrary to a fair interpretation of the evidence and constitute[d] a material deviation from what would be reasonable compensation'” … . Natoli v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 00988, First Dept 2-11-20

 

,

APPLICATION TO FILE A LATE CLAIM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTING A LATE CLAIM UNDER THE COURT OF CLAIMS ACT DESCRIBED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing the Court of Claims, determined claimant’s application to file a late claim in this Labor Law 240 (1) action should have been granted. The criteria for allowing a late claim under the Court of Claims Act were described in some detail:

Upon our consideration of the six factors outlined in Court of Claims Act § 10 (6), we conclude that the court abused its discretion in denying claimant’s application insofar as claimant sought to assert a cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Several factors militate against granting claimant’s application. For instance, his excuse for failing to file a timely notice of intent was law office failure, which, as the court determined, is not an acceptable excuse … . Also, as the court noted, claimant has at least “a partial alternate remedy through workers’ compensation” … . With respect to three of the remaining four statutory factors, we agree with the court’s determination that defendant had notice of the essential facts constituting the claim, had an opportunity to investigate the claim and was not prejudiced by the delay … .

The most significant factor, however, is “whether the claim appears to be meritorious” (Court of Claims Act § 10 [6]) inasmuch as “it would be futile to permit the filing of a legally deficient claim which would be subject to immediate dismissal, even if the other factors tend to favor the granting of the request” … .

.. [D]ocumentation submitted by claimant indicates that, as he struggled to remove the window and lower it to the ground, the window allegedly “fell” on him, causing him to sustain injuries to his back.

Claimant’s submissions raise issues of fact whether he was injured by the application of the force of gravity to the window as he was moving it between “a physically significant elevation differential” … . Phillips v State of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 00753, Fourth Dept 1-31-20

 

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