You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law

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

 

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER INSTALLING CONDENSERS WAS ‘ALTERATION’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241(6); DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was engaged in construction (alteration) at the time of his injury. His Labor Law 241(6) cause of action, therefore, should not have been dismissed:

Plaintiff alleges that he was injured while installing a refrigeration condenser unit at premises owned by Boss and leased by Antillana. We find that the motion court improperly granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) claim. Plaintiff was engaged in an activity within the purview of Labor Law § 241(6). Plaintiff worked at the subject premises during the build-out installing three refrigeration system condensers, which weighed about 3000 pounds and had to be moved with a forklift. Three weeks after the store was opened, plaintiff was asked to install an additional condenser which weighed about 200 pounds. The president of Antillana acknowledged that there had been a renovation project underway at the premises before plaintiff’s accident.

We find that there is an issue of fact whether the subsequent installation of the condenser constituted an “alteration” of the premises, which falls within the ambit of “construction” work under Labor Law § 241(6) … . Rodriguez v Antillana & Metro Supermarket Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 00669, First Dept 1-30-20

 

PLAINTIFF WAS PROVIDED WITH A LADDER WITHOUT RUBBER FEET WHICH SLID CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO FALL; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause action in this ladder fall case:

We agree with the Supreme Court’s determination granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action asserted against [defendant]. The plaintiff established, prima facie, [defendant’s] liability under Labor Law § 240(1) through the submission of a transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which demonstrated that he was provided with a ladder that lacked rubber feet, and that the ladder, which was leaning against a wall, slid away from the wall, causing the plaintiff to fall to the ground … . Chapa v Bayles Props., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 00397, Second Dept 1-22-20

 

PLAINTIFF WAS ON A LADDER WHEN HE RECEIVED AN ELECTRIC SHOCK; THERE WAS NO SHOWING THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE AND PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANT RESPONSIBLE FOR TURNING OFF THE ELECTRICITY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment on his Labor Law 240( 1) cause of action and he was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action. Plaintiff on a ladder when he received an electric shock. There was no showing the ladder was defective. ADCO, the company which was responsible for shutting off the was liable pursuant to Labor Law 241 (6):

Plaintiff seeks damages for personal injuries he sustained in a fall from a ladder while installing duct work on a building renovation project after either he received a shock or an arc fault occurred when he came into contact with a live electrical junction box. Summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor as to liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim is precluded by an issue of fact as to whether the ladder, which was properly set up, provided plaintiff with proper protection … ; plaintiff had no problem with the ladder prior to the electric shock and questions of fact exist whether a scaffold could have prevented this accident. Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law § 241(6) claim predicated on violations of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.13(b)(2), (3) and (4) against ADCO, the electrical subcontractor, which failed to warn of and de-energize or “safe off” the junction box so that a worker would not come into contact with it. Because ADCO had been delegated authority to control the electrical work that gave rise to plaintiff’s injury, it was a statutory agent subject to liability under the statute … . Higgins v TST 375 Hudson, L.L.C., 2020 NY Slip Op 00358, First Dept 1-14-20

 

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