You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law

QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON MOST (BUT NOT ALL) OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6), 200, COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE AND INDEMNIFICATION ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL INVOLVING A MAKESHIFT PLATFORM PLAINTIFF WAS USING TO INSTALL SPRINKLERS; THE DECISION HAS GOOD SUMMARIES OF THE ELEMENTS OF ALL OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a substantive decision which explains the elements of Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6), 200, common-law negligence and indemnification causes of action, determined questions of fact precluded summary judgment on most of the causes of action. Plaintiff was installing sprinklers and fell when he was attempting to position a plank he was using as a platform to stand on. With respect to Labor Law 240 (1), the court wrote:

Here, the [defendants] failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his fall and subsequent injuries … . Although they submitted evidence that there were ladders at the site and available to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff used one such ladder in order to climb to the top of the wall, they also submitted the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which demonstrated the existence of triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff was recalcitrant or whether he was following his supervisor’s instructions and performing the work in the only way possible. In addition, the plaintiff and [defendant] employees testified at their respective depositions that, although [defendant] was aware that the dropped ceiling grids had been installed prior to the sprinklers, no one from [defendant], which had the authority to stop any unsafe work practices, sought to stop the plaintiff from working as he did. Thus, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination denying those branches of the motions of [defendants] which were for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) … .

However, we agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Triable issues of fact exist as to whether the [defendants] should have provided safety devices or whether the plaintiff’s act in erecting and using a scaffolding board was a recalcitrant act which was the sole proximate cause of his injury. Graziano v Source Bldrs. & Consultants, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06477, Second Dept 9-11-19

 

PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN UNGUARDED ELEVATED PLATFORM; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted, and defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 cause of action should not have been granted in this “fall from an elevated platform” case:

Plaintiff electrician was injured when he fell from an elevated concrete platform on his work site that did not have safety rails or stairs, and over which he was repeatedly required to traverse to access an electrical panel to do his work. This accident falls within the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1), because plaintiff’s injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection, such as a guardrail or stairs, to prevent the risk posed by the physically significant elevation differential … .

Since plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 200 claim is premised upon [defendant’s] alleged notice and failure to remedy the dangerous condition of materials stored haphazardly on the platform where plaintiff fell, it should have been sustained … . Coombes v Shawmut Design & Constr., 2019 NY Slip Op 06455. 9-10-19​

 

INJURY FROM A CHAIN-LINK FENCE AT A CONSTRUCTION SITE WHICH BLEW OVER ONTO PLAINTIFFS NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) OR 241 (6); QUESTIONS OF FACT RE: LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action. Plaintiffs were injured when a chain link fence blew over on them, an incident not covered by Labor Law 240 (1) or 241 (6). However, there were questions of fact re: the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action:

… [D]efendants … made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … by demonstrating that the chain-link fence was not an object being hoisted or an object that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking, and that the fence did not fall because of the absence or inadequacy of an enumerated safety device … . Gurewitz v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 06384, Second Dept 8-28-19

 

PLAINTIFF WAS KILLED WHEN A HEAVY PIECE OF EQUIPMENT HE WAS WELDING FELL; ALTHOUGH THE EQUIPMENT WAS FABRICATED FOR A POWER PLANT BEING CONSTRUCTED IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff was not involved in an activity covered by Labor Law 240 (1) when he was pinned and killed by a piece of equipment he was welding. Plaintiff was engaged in fabricating a rotor compartment which was to be installed in a power plaint in New Hampshire. Plaintiff and the dissent argued plaintiff’s work was part of the New Hampshire construction project:

We conclude that defendants thus established that decedent was not engaged in a covered activity under Labor Law § 240 (1) inasmuch as he was performing his “customary occupational work of fabricating” and welding a rotor compartment “during the normal manufacturing process” at the plant in Wellsville, and was not involved in the construction project in New Hampshire nor involved in renovation or alteration work on the plant in Wellsville … . Preston v APCH, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06236, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF POSITIONED THE SCAFFOLD SUCH THAT IT TIPPED WHEN A WHEEL WENT THROUGH A HOLE IN A DRAIN GRATE, HE WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff had positioned the scaffold on a drain grate and the scaffold tipped when a wheel went through a hole in the grate:

“[T]he relevant and proper inquiry is whether the hazard plaintiff encountered . . . was a separate hazard wholly unrelated to the hazard which brought about [the] need [for a safety device] in the first instance” … . Here, it is undisputed that the scaffold on which plaintiff was standing tipped over because one of its wheels was placed over an open floor drain hole. The fact that the scaffold tipped and plaintiff fell to the ground “demonstrates that it was not so placed . . . as to give proper protection to [him]” … . We therefore conclude that plaintiff’s accident was caused by an elevation-related risk as contemplated in section 240 (1) … .

We reject defendant’s contentions that the sole proximate cause of the accident was plaintiff’s failure to observe the drain hole and position the scaffold in such a manner to avoid it. “[T]here can be no liability under [Labor Law § ] 240 (1) when there is no violation and the worker’s actions . . . are the sole proximate cause’ of the accident” … , and “[a] defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action or claim by establishing that . . . the plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident” … . Plaintiff submitted the testimony of four witnesses, including the project superintendent of the subcontractor that installed the drain and the project manager and superintendent of the subcontractor that installed the concrete floor and curing blanket. Each testified that a temporary cover should be placed over an open drain during the installation of the concrete floor, and therefore plaintiff established that a statutory violation, i.e., the placement of the scaffold over the improperly covered drain hole, was a proximate cause of the accident … . Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff was negligent in failing to observe the drain hole and positioning the scaffold over it, we conclude that his “actions . . . render him [merely] contributorily negligent, a defense unavailable under [Labor Law § 240 (1)]”  … . “Because plaintiff established that a statutory violation was a proximate cause of [his] injury, [he] cannot be solely to blame for it’ ” … . Wolf v Ledcor Constr. Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06263, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

MERELY LOSING ONE’S BALANCE AND FALLING FROM A LADDER DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6) and 200 action. There were questions of fact about how the accident happened, whether the plaintiff was employed by a defendant, whether that defendant was employed by the owner, and whether defendant had authority or control over the site or plaintiff. In addition neither the complaint nor the bill of particulars cited a specific Industrial Code violation. The court noted than merely losing one’s balance and falling off a ladder does not give rise to liability under Labor Law 240 (1):

A defendant is not liable on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action unless it is an owner or “a general contractor or an agent of an owner or general contractor with the authority to supervise and control the work of . . . the injured plaintiff” … and, in order for the statute to apply, “a plaintiff must demonstrate that he [or she] was both permitted or suffered to work on a building or structure and that he [or she] was hired by someone, be it owner, contractor or . . . agent [thereof]” … . …

Defendant would not be liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) if plaintiff merely lost his balance and fell off a ladder … . … Pelonero v Sturm Roofing, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06327, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES WERE NOT CAUSED BY A DEFECT IN THE SCAFFOLD OR A FAILURE TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE, LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, over an extensive two-justice dissent, determined that plaintiff’s Labor Law 200, 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action were properly dismissed. Plaintiff was injured attempting to enter a building through a window from a scaffold, a prohibited method of entry. There was evidence plaintiff dislocated his shoulder trying to pull himself up to the window, and there was (possibly conflicting) evidence plaintiff fell backwards onto the scaffold. The majority concluded that in either scenario the injury was not caused by a defect in the scaffold or a failure to provide an adequate safety device, and therefore was not compensable:

Plaintiff’s claim was correctly dismissed because defendants demonstrated as a matter of law that plaintiff’s injury was not proximately caused by a violation of section 240(1). Plaintiff’s own actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Plaintiff conceded that scaffold stairs were available to him to descend several floors and reenter the building. Further, as already noted, he admitted during his deposition that he knew he was not supposed to climb through the [*5]window and that it would have been safer to use the scaffold stairs. On appeal, he essentially argues, inter alia, that reentry via the scaffold stairs would have taken more time and would have been an inconvenience. Plaintiff also admitted to unhooking his safety line in order to climb through the window cut-out. Under the circumstances, adequate safety devices were available for plaintiff’s use at the job site, and his own actions in unhooking his safety line and climbing through the window were the sole proximate cause of his injuries … .

Because plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries, the claims for common-law negligence and violation of Labor Law § 200 were also properly dismissed … .

Plaintiff also failed to raise an issue of fact as to a violation of the Industrial Code, as required to support the claim under Labor Law § 241(6) … . Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7(d), which requires that an employer “not suffer or permit any employee to use a floor, passageway, walkway, scaffold, platform or other elevated working surface which is in a slippery condition,” clearly does not include a crossbar, such as the one from which plaintiff allegedly slipped, because it is limited to “working surfaces.” While a scaffold platform on which workers stand and work would seemingly come within the provision, structural crossbars which simply hold the scaffold together are not working surfaces required for standing or walking … . Biaca-Neto v Boston Rd. II Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 06142, First Dept 8-13-19

 

CONFLICTING EVIDENCE WHETHER THE PLYWOOD WHICH FLEXED CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO FALL WAS OVER A THREE-FOOT DEEP HOLE OR TRENCH; LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined the Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action should not have been dismissed. There was conflicting evidence whether the plywood which flexed causing plaintiff to fall was over a three-foot deep hole or trench:

… [T]here was conflicting deposition testimony regarding whether the plywood was, under the circumstances, the functional equivalent of a scaffold meant to prevent the plaintiff from falling into a three-foot-deep hole or trench … . …

… [T]he regulation which plaintiff alleges was violated concerns structural runways, ramps, and platforms (see 12 NYCRR 23-1.22[b]), which is a regulation that sets forth specific standards of conduct sufficient to support a Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action … . Similar to the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, the conflicting deposition testimony … raised a triable issue of fact as to whether there was insufficient bracing under the plywood … . Davies v Simon Prop. Group, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05955, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

CONFLICTING TESTIMONY ABOUT WHETHER A CO-WORKER WAS HOLDING THE LADDER PLAINTIFF WAS USING PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined conflicting testimony concerning whether the ladder plaintiff was using was being held by a co-worker raised a question of fact in this Labor Law 240 (1) action:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted, among other things, a transcript of his deposition testimony and a transcript of a workers’ compensation board hearing, which included the testimony of the plaintiff and his coworker. The plaintiff testified at his deposition and at the hearing that the ladder shifted, causing him to lose his footing, and that nobody was holding the ladder at the time of the accident. His coworker gave a different account. The coworker testified that he was standing at the bottom of the ladder, holding it, when he felt the ladder jolt. Whether the ladder was being stabilized at the time of the accident presents a triable issue of fact … . Accordingly, “the plaintiff’s own submissions demonstrated that there are triable issues of fact as to how this accident occurred and it cannot be concluded, as a matter of law, that the alleged failure to provide the plaintiff with proper protection proximately caused his injuries” … . Lozada v St. Patrick’s R C Church, 2019 NY Slip Op 05971, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

, ,

DEFENDANT, AN OUT OF POSSESSION LESSEE, WAS NOT AN ‘OWNER’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) OR 241 (6) AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant M & M was not a property owner in the context of Labor Law 240 (1) or 241 (6) and therefore was entitled to summary judgment. The Fourth Department noted that an issue on which Supreme Court reserved decision is not appealable:

For purposes of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) liability, “the term owner’ is not limited to the titleholder of the property where the accident occurred and encompasses a [party] who has an interest in the property and who fulfilled the role of owner by contracting to have work performed for [its] benefit’ ” … . ” [The owner] is the party who, as a practical matter, has the right to hire or fire subcontractors and to insist that proper safety practices are followed’ ” … . “The key factor in determining whether a non-titleholder is an owner’ is the right to insist that proper safety practices were followed and it is the right to control the work that is significant, not the actual exercise or nonexercise of control’ ” … .

Here, M and M met its initial burden of establishing that it was not an owner for purposes of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) because its submissions established that “it was an out-of-possession lessee of the property [that] neither contracted for nor supervised the work that brought about the injury, and had no authority to exercise any control over the specific work area that gave rise to plaintiff’s injuries’ ” … . Thompson v M & M Forwarding of Buffalo, N.Y., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05875, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

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