You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY OVER SAFETY CONDITIONS IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) LADDER-FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) ladder-fall action was properly denied as against the alleged genera contractor, Edler. There was a question of fact whether Edler was a general contractor and whether Edler had the authority to supervise safety conditions:

To be found a “general contractor” for purposes of establishing liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), plaintiffs must show that Edler had the ability to control the activity bringing about the injury and the authority to correct unsafe conditions … . Here, plaintiffs failed to establish, as a matter of law, that Edler had the ability to control [plaintiff’s employer’s] work at the premises or stop the work. The record reflects that although Edler was hired to “supervise” the project, Edler did not hire, retain or pay any of the contractors working at the premises … . Moreover, the homeowner testified that he “assume[d]” that Edler had safety responsibilities and that it was his understanding that Edler had the authority to stop work on the job site if an unsafe condition arose. However, Edler’s principal denies that he had the authority to stop the work at the premises, and the agreement between Edler and the homeowner does not specifically confer upon Edler the authority to stop the work if an unsafe condition was observed … . Rather, it provides that part of Edler’s “site supervision” responsibilities included supervising “day to day operations” of the site and trade. An issue of fact remains as to whether this includes supervision of the safety conditions. Uzeyiroglu v Edler Estate Care Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 03285, First Dept 4-30-19

 

, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL AND HOLD A MEMBER OF DEFENDANT LLC PERSONALLY LIABLE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE LLC MEMBER PERSONALLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the motion for summary judgment in this construction accident case against a member of defendant LLC should not have been granted. The motion papers did not support piercing the corporate veil to reach the LLC member (Albaliya) personally:

As a limited liability company, Nadlan is a separate legal entity from its members (see Limited Liability Company Law § 609). “A member of a limited liability company cannot be held liable for the company’s obligations by virtue of his [or her] status as a member thereof'” … .

“However, a party may seek to hold a member of an LLC individually liable despite this statutory proscription by application of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil” … . “Generally, . . . piercing the corporate veil requires a showing that: (1) the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and (2) that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff’s injury” … . Singh v Nadlan, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 03100, Second Dept 4-24-19

 

,

ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT WAS INJURED WHEN METAL POLES BEING HOISTED BY A CRANE SLIPPED OUT OF A CHOKER AND STRUCK HIM, CLAIMANT DID NOT SUBMIT EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE RE: THE CAUSE AND DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT RE: WHETHER HIS CONDUCT IN SECURING THE POLES WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE, CLAIMANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined claimant was not entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Claimant had secured metal posts with a choker. When the posts were lifted by a crane, they slipped out of the choker and struck claimant, cause traumatic brain injury. Claimant did not submit any expert opinion evidence. Defendant alleged claimant’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident:

To prevail on a motion for summary judgment in a Labor Law § 240(1) “falling object” case, the claimant must demonstrate that, at the time the object fell, it either was being hoisted or secured, or required securing for the purposes of the undertaking …. Labor Law § 240(1) “does not automatically apply simply because an object fell and injured a worker; [a] plaintiff must show that the object fell . . . because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute'” … .

Here, the claimants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The evidence submitted by the claimants was insufficient to establish that the posts fell due to the absence or inadequacy of an enumerated safety device, and the claimants further failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the claimant’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . Houston v State of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 03032, Second Dept 4-24-19

 

PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, NOT REPAIR, WHEN HE FELL FROM AN ELEVATED FORKLIFT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff injured engaging in routine maintenance of an HVAC unit, not repair. Therefore defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) action should have been granted. Plaintiff fell from a forklift which was used to lift him up to HVAC unit in the ceiling:

“In determining whether a particular activity constitutes repairing,’ courts are careful to distinguish between repairs and routine maintenance, the latter falling outside the scope of section 240(1)” … . “Generally, courts have held that work constitutes routine maintenance where the work involves replacing components that require replacement in the course of normal wear and tear'” … . …

At his deposition, the plaintiff testified that before the accident occurred, he determined that a belt was missing from the heating unit. Then, according to the plaintiff, while he was in the process of lowering a panel to see whether the pilot light to the heating unit was on or off, he slipped and fell. The plaintiff testified that, based on his experience, there was nothing extraordinary or unusual about a belt needing to be replaced or a pilot light going out on a heating unit. … [The] evidence showed that the plaintiff’s work “involved replacing components that require replacement in the course of normal wear and tear” and did not constitute “repairing” or any other enumerated activity … . Dahlia v S&K Distrib., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 03023, Second Dept 4-24-19

 

FALL FROM A LADDER WHICH WAS NOT SECURED, AND WHICH SHOOK AND THEN KICKED OUT FROM UNDER PLAINTIFF, ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action in this ladder-fall case should have been granted:

“Although [a] fall from a ladder, by itself, is not sufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 240(1),’ liability will be imposed when the evidence shows that the subject ladder was . . . inadequately secured and that . . . the failure to secure the ladder was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries'” … .  Here, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that Labor Law § 240(1) was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of his injuries … . Through his deposition testimony, the plaintiff demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability under that statute when he testified that a carpentry foreman directed him to retrieve the subject ladder, which the plaintiff ascended without a spotter, and which shifted and shook before the bottom “kicked out,” causing him to fall  … . DeSerio v City of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 02679, Second Dept 4-10-19

 

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANTS-HOMEOWNERS DIRECTED HIM TO REMOVE HIS BOOTS WHILE WORKING, PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON STAIRS BECAUSE HE WAS WEARING ONLY SOCKS, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants-homeowners’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted in this Labor Law 200 action. Someone told plaintiff to take off his boots while working in the home and he slipped and fell on the stairs. Plaintiff did not demonstrate that it was the defendants who told him to remove his boots:

Plaintiff claims that he was injured after slipping and falling on slippery stairs because he was directed to remove his boots while working. Defendants established prima facie that they did not exercise supervisory control over the means and methods of plaintiff’s work … . Their principals, the homeowners, testified that they were not home on the day of the accident and that they never asked any workers to remove their boots. In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the man from whom he received the instruction to remove his boots had apparent authority to direct his work … . Plaintiff was unable to identify the man, the man’s employer, or the man’s relationship to the homeowners. Moreover, plaintiff testified that at first he refused to take his boots off. Plaintiff called his supervisor who warned him that if he did not remove his boots he would be fired. As such, plaintiff’s supervisor gave the ultimate direction to remove his boots, which establishes that the employer exercised supervisory control over the injury-producing work.

The record also shows that the stairs were not in a dangerous condition … . Plaintiff himself testified that there were no observable defects on the stairs, that they were not wet, and that they were free of chips and cracks. He admitted that he slipped solely because he was wearing socks with no boots … . Antonio v West 70th Owners Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 02626, First Dept 4-4-19

 

UNLOADING STEEL PLATES USED TO COVER EXCAVATED AREAS AT A CONSTRUCTION SITE WAS A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff was properly awarded summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff was injured unloading a two-ton steel plate used to cover excavated areas at a construction site. The defendant’s argument that the plate was not unloaded for construction work. but rather for storage, was rejected:

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing that the work he was performing as an employee of Clean at the time of his accident was covered under section 240(1). There is no dispute that plaintiff was injured in the course of unloading an approximately two-ton steel plate at a construction site owned by defendant Con Ed, after transporting the plate to the site by truck. Witnesses consistently indicated that Clean routinely unloaded steel plates at the site for the purpose of covering areas excavated for electrical work. Clean performed this work pursuant to a contract that required it to provide steel plates at excavation sites owned by defendant including the subject site, and also required Clean to perform work ancillary to other tasks enumerated under Labor Law § 240(1) such as removing construction-related debris and installing barricades for excavation work … . Moreover, plaintiff performed this work on an active construction site while another worker on the site was building a removable roof for a transformer vault.

Clean failed to raise triable issues of fact as to whether plaintiff’s work was covered by Labor Law § 240(1). It does not avail Clean to assert that plaintiff unloaded the plate merely for the purpose of storage. The Court of Appeals has rejected an interpretation of Labor Law § 240(1) that “would compartmentalize a plaintiff’s activity and exclude from the statute’s coverage preparatory work essential to the enumerated act” … . Saquicaray v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 02460, First Dept 4-2-19

 

THERE WAS CONFLICTING EVIDENCE WHETHER PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD NO MEMORY OF THE ACCIDENT, FELL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER OR A SCAFFOLD, BOTH WERE DEEMED INADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICES AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the conflicting evidence, indicating plaintiff either fell from an A-frame ladder or from a scaffold, did not preclude summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff had no memory of the accident. The court reasoned that both the step ladder and the scaffold constituted an inadequate safety device under the circumstances:

As to the “ladder version,” although plaintiff has no specific recollection of the ladder moving, he also testified that, immediately before the fall, he was standing on the second to the last rung up, with his hands over his head toward the duct, which he could barely reach. Such testimony establishes prima facie that the ladder did not provide proper protection for plaintiff … . Because the record is clear that the ladder did not prevent him from falling, his inability to identify the precise manner in which he fell is immaterial … . As to the “scaffold version,” it is undisputed fact that the scaffold from which plaintiff purportedly fell had no guardrails. This fact establishes prima facie that it was an inadequate safety device  … . Under either version, defendants have not raised a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff’s negligence was the sole proximate cause of his accident … . Ajche v Park Ave. Plaza Owner, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 02456, First Dept 4-2-19

 

, , ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION THE LADDER MOVED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, NOTWITHSTANDING EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE SAID HE PLACED THE LADDER ON A DROP CLOTH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined defendant’s affirmative defenses alleging it was an alter ego of plaintiff’s employer and plaintiff was its special employee, thereby insulating defendant from anything other than liability under the Workers’ Compensation Law, should have been dismissed. Summary judgment was properly awarded to plaintiff on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff alleged the ladder he was on moved for no apparent reason. The fact that plaintiff apparently told a co-worker that he set the ladder on a drop cloth merely raised a question of his contributory negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law 240 (1) action:

“Labor Law § 240(1) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners and general contractors to provide safety devices to protect workers from elevation-related risks” … . The sole proximate cause defense applies where the plaintiff, acting as a “recalcitrant worker,” misused an otherwise proper safety device, chose to use an inadequate safety device when proper devices were readily available, or failed to use any device when proper devices were available … . Contributory negligence on the part of the worker is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action … .

Here, the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to  … judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, by submitting evidence that the ladder on which he was standing moved for no apparent reason, causing him to fall … . In opposition to the plaintiff’s prima facie showing, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s own acts or omissions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the deposition testimony of the plaintiff’s coworker implying that, after the accident, the plaintiff might have told the coworker that the plaintiff had set the ladder up on top of a drop cloth, even if true, would render the plaintiff only contributorily negligent, a defense not available under Labor Law § 240(1) … . Salinas v 64 Jefferson Apts., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 02370, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

,

DEFECTIVE A-FRAME LADDER ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION, STATEMENTS IN MEDICAL RECORDS WERE INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) action. Plaintiff fell from an A-frame ladder which had a defective locking mechanism. The court noted that the evidence in the medical records did not raise a question of fact because the statements in the records were not admissible. The hearsay statements were not attributable to the plaintiff and had nothing to do with treatment:

The plaintiff’s deposition testimony established, prima facie, that the defendant, as the general contractor, violated Labor Law § 240(1) by providing a ladder with a defective lock, which caused the ladder to collapse and the plaintiff to fall to the ground … .

… [T]he notations in the hospital records upon which the defendant relies were not attributed to the plaintiff. As the defendant failed to offer evidence sufficiently connecting the plaintiff to the statements in the hospital records, the party admission exception to the hearsay rule does not apply … . Moreover, none of the notations were germane to the plaintiff’s diagnosis or treatment and, at trial, would not be admissible for their truth under the business records exception to the hearsay rule (see CPLR 4518 … ). While hearsay statements may be used to oppose motions for summary judgment, they cannot, as here, be the only evidence submitted to raise a triable issue of fact … . Gomez v Kitchen & Bath by Linda Burkhardt, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 02070, Second Dept 3-20-19

 

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