You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BOARDS OR MASONITE WERE SCATTERED DEBRIS OR DELIBERATELY PLACED AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE RENOVATION WORK; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON HIS LABOR 241(6) CAUSE OF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether boards/Masonite on the floor of a passageway were placed there as an integral part of the renovation project or were scattered debris constituting a tripping hazard in violation of the Industrial Code (12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1) or (e)(2)). The court held there was a question of fact on that issue and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should not have been granted. The court noted that its decision to the contrary in Singh v 1221 Holdings, LLC (127 AD3d 607 [1st Dept 2015]) should no longer be followed:

Plaintiff claims that the boards were a tripping hazard and a violation of Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e)(1) because defendants failed to provide him with a passageway free of obstructions. Defendants argue, however, that there is no liability because the boards were Masonite, not scattered materials or debris, and because they were purposefully laid out upon the floor each day, this being “integral to” the renovation work being performed.

At the outset, these arguments require us to address whether the “integral-to-the work” defense raised by defendants, but rejected by Supreme Court, equally applies to Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(1), as well as § 23-1.7(e)(2). We hold that it does. * * *

[The facts] raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether the boards were a “protective covering [that] had been purposefully installed on the floor as an integral part of the renovation project” … . … [S]ummary judgment in favor of plaintiff was improper because it was based on the mistaken supposition that the “integral-to-work” defense means integral to plaintiff’s specific task. The defense applies to things and conditions that are an integral part of the construction, not just to the specific task a plaintiff may be performing at the time of the accident … . Krzyzanowski v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 00232, First Dept 1-14-20

 

,

JURY CONFUSION AND THE INCONSISTENT VERDICT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL; EVEN A WORKER AUTHORIZED TO BE WITHIN THE RANGE OF AN EXCAVATOR BUCKET CAN CLAIM THE PROTECTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH PROHIBITS WORK IN AN AREA WHERE A WORKER MAY BE STRUCK BY EXCAVATION EQUIPMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the inconsistent verdict in this Labor Law 241(6) action required a new trial. The trial court had dismissed the action. The Second Department noted that even though plaintiff was a member of an excavator crew and therefore was authorized to be within range of a moving excavator bucket he still claim the protections provided by 12 NYCRR 23-9.5(k) which provides “[p]ersons shall not be . . . permitted to work in any area where they may be struck . . . by any excavation equipment.” Plaintiff’s hand was crushed by an excavator bucket:

The jury returned a verdict finding that the City defendants violated Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) 23-4.2(k), but that the violation was not a substantial factor in causing the accident. Although the instructions on the verdict sheet directed the jury to end its deliberations if it found that the violation of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) 23-4.2(k) was not a substantial factor in causing the accident, the jury further found that the injured plaintiff was negligent and that his negligence was a substantial factor in causing the accident. The jury then proceeded to apportion fault 25% to the City defendants and 75% to the injured plaintiff. After the Supreme Court instructed the jurors to reconsider its verdict, the jury returned a second verdict which was identical to the first verdict, except that the jurors did not answer the questions as to the injured plaintiff’s negligence and apportionment of fault. …

“When a jury’s verdict is internally inconsistent, the trial court must direct either reconsideration by the jury or a new trial” ( …see CPLR 4111[c] …). “On reconsideration, the jury [is] free to substantively alter its original statement so as to conform to its real intention, and [is] not bound by the terms of its original verdict inasmuch as that verdict was not entered by the court” … . “Even after reconsideration by the jury, a trial court has discretion to set aside a verdict which is clearly the product of substantial confusion among the jurors” . “A new trial should be granted where . . . the record demonstrates … substantial confusion among the jurors in reaching a verdict” … . Torres v City of New York, 2020 NY Slip Op 00170, Second Dept 1-8-20

 

PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF FELL ATTEMPTING TO USE AN INVERTED BUCKET TO STEP UP TO AN ELEVATED PLATFORM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff fell attempting to use an inverted bucket to access an elevated platform:

The protection of Labor Law § 240(1) encompasses plaintiff[‘s] … fall while trying to access an elevated work platform by stepping up onto an inverted bucket, an inadequate safety device that failed to provide proper protection … . Moreover, defendants failed to cite any evidence rebutting the affidavit by plaintiff’s foreman stating that stairs or other access points to the work platform were either restricted or blocked by materials. Because no safety devices were available to plaintiff to access the platform, as a matter of fact and law, plaintiff’s attempt to use the inverted bucket cannot be the sole proximate cause of his accident … .

Because no stairways, ramps, or runaways were available to plaintiff to access the platform, he was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law § 241(6) claim predicated upon Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7(f) … . Ferguson v Durst Pyramid, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 09388, First Dept 12-26-19

 

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNAKING A WIRE ABOVE CEILING TILES IS ‘CONSTRUCTION’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241(6); SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was injured while snaking a wire about ceiling tiles. Supreme Court held the work was not “construction” within the meaning of the statute and the First Department disagreed:

Labor Law § 241(6) requires owners, contractors and their agents to provide a safe workplace for workers performing “construction, excavation or demolition work.” “In determining what constitutes construction’ for purposes of the statute we look to the Industrial Code which, as relevant here, defines construction to include alteration of a structure” … .

We find that an issue of fact is raised as to whether plaintiff was altering the structure when he was pulling cable above the drop ceiling … . In his deposition plaintiff stated that, in order to access the cable, plaintiff pushed a ceiling tile “over to the next tile.” He described his work at the time of the accident as “going up into the ceiling . . . to figure out where we were going with the cable.” Plaintiff had been provided with a saw to cut holes in the wall and ceiling when necessary. … [A]s “running cables” is considered to be a “significant physical change” to fall within the purview of alteration and not “routine” maintenance, there remains a question of fact as to whether plaintiff’s work constituted an alteration within the meaning of Labor Law § 241(6). Emery v Steinway, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 09368, First Dept 12-26-19

 

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE; QUESTION OF FACT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1)  “falling object” cause of action:

The record reflects that plaintiff was on a temporary exterior platform on the 21st floor of a building under construction, when he was struck and injured by a falling piece of DensGlass, an exterior sheetrock material, which matched the size of a missing piece of sheetrock one floor above. Plaintiff was in the process of dismantling the bridge that was linked to the exterior hoist elevator.

Plaintiff established his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim based on the record evidence that a piece of the exterior facade of the building still under construction fell on him, that workers were performing patch work to the DensGlass on the floors above plaintiff, and that the exterior facade was not complete … . Furthermore, defendants’ cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the § 241(6) claim should have been denied because there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the area where the accident occurred was “normally exposed to falling material or objects” requiring that plaintiff be provided with “suitable overhead protection” (see 12 NYCRR 23-1.7[a][1] …). Garcia v SMJ 210 W. 18 LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 08791, First Dept 12-10-19

 

PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS USING HIS OWN LADDER WHEN IT SLID CAUSING HIM TO FALL, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action in this ladder-fall case was properly granted. The rolling stairway provided to plaintiff was not high enough to reach the control box for a door which was stuck open. So plaintiff used his own ladder which slid to the side causing him to fall 10 or 12 feet:

Labor Law § 240(1) provides that building owners and contractors shall furnish, or cause to be furnished, safety devices which are “so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection [to workers]” … . “To establish liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must demonstrate a violation of the statute and that such violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries” … . A building owner may be held liable for a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) even if it did not exercise supervision or control over the work … .

Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action … by demonstrating that he was injured when he fell while using an unsecured ladder, which unexpectedly collapsed and caused his injuries, without the benefit of any safety devices to prevent such a fall … . Jara v Costco Wholesale Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 08664, Second Dept 12-4-19

 

NO NEED TO SHOW LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE; ENOUGH TO SHOW PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH ANY EQUIPMENT TO ENSURE THE LADDER REMAINED UPRIGHT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) ladder-fall case was properly granted. The court noted there was no need to show the ladder was defective, only that nothing was provided to keep the ladder upright while plaintiff was using it:

Whether plaintiff slipped from the rung of the ladder or the ladder tipped over as he sought to steady himself while descending it, plaintiff’s testimony established prima facie that defendant failed to provide a safety device to insure that the ladder would remain upright while plaintiff used it to perform his statutorily covered work; plaintiff was not required to show that the ladder was defective (Labor Law § 240[1] …).

In opposition, defendant failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff’s placement of the ladder where he could fall or step onto a stack of sheetrock was the sole proximate cause of his accident, since it presented no evidence that the appropriate equipment was available to plaintiff … . Moreover, because plaintiff established that defendant failed to provide an adequate safety device to protect him from elevation-related risks and that that failure was a proximate cause of his injuries, any negligence on plaintiff’s part in placing the ladder near the sheetrock is of no consequence … . Pierrakeas v 137 E. 38th St. LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 08539, First Dept 11-26-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A WALL UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH A HARNESS; DEFENDANT’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT WAS SPECULATIVE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Defendant’s expert’s affidavit was deemed speculative because it was not based upon record evidence. Defendant’s argument that further discovery might reveal defenses was rejected, in part, because defendant was not diligent in pursuing discovery:

Plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim with his deposition testimony, photographic exhibits and expert’s opinion, which showed that he fell from a 10-foot high sidewalk bridge that he was helping to assemble on defendant’s property, when a pile of heavy wooden planks shifted and struck him on the legs, causing him to lose his balance. Plaintiff testified that the side barriers for the sidewalk bridge were not yet built, and he was not supplied with a safety harness to protect him from gravity-related harm … . …

Defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment was premature where its expert opined that depositions of the contractor’s personnel yet to be taken might yield evidence that plaintiff was supplied with a fall-arrest safety harness, and that he was recalcitrant in not using it, lacks factual support in the record, and as such, the expert’s opinion in that regard is speculative and non-probative … . The mere hope that additional discovery may lead to sufficient evidence to defeat a summary judgment motion is insufficient to deny such a motion … . The record further shows that defendant had a reasonable opportunity to pursue discovery … , and defendant has not shown that it was diligent in pursuing discovery in this case … . Singh v New York City Hous. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 08272, First Dept 11-14-19

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT WHICH, IN PART, CONTRADICTED HIS DEPOSITION TESTIMONY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) action should have been granted, despite an affidavit from the plaintiff which, in part, contradicted his deposition testimony. Plaintiff was struck from above by the chain in a chain hoist system:

Supreme Court correctly concluded that plaintiff Jose Goncalves’s affidavit submitted in support of the motion should not be considered to the extent that it averred that he was struck by the entire chain hoist system, which contradicted his deposition testimony that he was struck only by the chain itself … . However, the affidavit was consistent with his prior testimony that he was struck by the chain from above, and the record contains no evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, plaintiffs demonstrated that the chain hoist system at issue failed, causing Goncalves to be struck by an object – either the chain hoist system or just the chain itself – from above, and thereby established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . Goncalves v New 56th & Park (NY) Owner, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 08265, First Dept 11-14-19

 

PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO LEAVE A TRAILER THROUGH THE EXIT WHICH DID NOT HAVE A STAIRWAY ATTACHED, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1)  and 200 causes of action should not have been granted on the ground plaintiff’s action was the sole proximate cause of his injury. There were two exits to the trailer plaintiff was in, one had a stairway attached and one did not. Plaintiff fell to the ground when he attempted to use the exit with no stairway:

Defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident, i.e., that there was a staircase by which plaintiff could have exited the trailer, that he knew that a staircase was available and that he was expected to use it, that he chose for “no good reason” not to use it and that, if he had not made that choice, he would not have been injured … . For the same reason, we conclude that the court erred in granting defendants’ motion and cross motion with respect to the claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence … . Dziadaszek v Legacy Stratford, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 08029, Fourth Department 11-8-19

 

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