You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law

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

 

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WORKING ON AN HVAC SYSTEM, THE WORK WAS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 241 (1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s work on an HVAC system was routing maintenance, not covered by Labor Law 241 (6):

The plaintiff allegedly injured his back when he was performing a seasonal “start-up” of a cooling tower on the defendant’s HVAC system, which consisted of transitioning the HVAC system from heating to cooling. The company the defendant was employed by had done this work on a yearly basis for the past 10 years. As part of the work, the plaintiff and his coworker needed to reinstall a circulation pump on the HVAC tower, which had been removed for the winter months. To do so, the plaintiff tied a rope around the circulation pump, which weighed approximately 100 pounds, passed the rope over the top of an overhead beam, and pulled from the other side to raise the pump about three to five feet off the ground so his coworker could install it in the cooling tower. The plaintiff held the pump in the air for about 20 or 25 minutes while his coworker attempted to install it, but felt pain in his back and was unable to hold it any longer. The plaintiff allegedly needed back surgery as a result of the incident. …

Although maintenance work performed in connection with construction, demolition, or excavation work is included under Labor Law § 241(6), “[r]outine maintenance is not within the ambit of Labor Law § 241(6)” … . The Labor Law “does not cover routine maintenance in a nonconstruction, nonrenovation context” … . Byrnes v Nursing Sisters of the Sick Poor, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01736, Second Dept 3-13-19

 

THAT THE LADDER WAS NOT DEFECTIVE DID NOT MATTER, THE LADDER WAS NOT AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE LADDER WAS NOT ADEQUATELY SECURED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly granted. The ladder was deemed an inadequate safety device because plaintiff had to step off the ladder onto display cases to do his work. The fact that the ladder was not defective was not dispositive because the ladder was not secured:

Plaintiff, who fell from a ladder while installing light fixtures in [the] building, was forced to install a portion of the light by standing on display cases approximately 20 feet high, and then returning to the top of the ladder to finish that portion of the installation, which was located partially over the cases. While attempting to maneuver himself into position on the ladder, he lost his balance and fell. Whether the ladder shook prior to his fall or during that period in time when he was attempting to recover his balance is of no moment, since the ladder was an inadequate safety device for the work being performed … . The claim … that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident is unpersuasive, since plaintiff’s stance was necessary to perform the work … . It also does not avail defendants that the ladder was not defective, since it is undisputed that the ladder was unsecured, and the worker who had been holding the ladder walked away only minutes before the accident … . Nieto v CLDN NY LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 01537, First Dept 3-5-19

 

PLAINTIFF WAS DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE WHEN HE FELL FROM A LADDER, NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined plaintiff was not engaged in work covered by Labor Law 240 (1) when he fell from a ladder:

Although plaintiff injured his elbow when the ladder he was using in defendant’s building fell over, he is not entitled to relief under Labor Law § 240(1) since he was not engaged in construction-related activity at the time of his accident … . Plaintiff’s actions of opening a splice box affixed to the wall and splicing telephone wires therein while on a service call for a customer of his employer did not constitute an alteration of the building, but rather routine maintenance … . Spencer v 322 Partners, L.L.C., 2019 NY Slip Op 01523, First Dept 3-5-19

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF DID NOT FALL ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE GAP IN THE ELEVATED PLATFORM WAS WIDE ENOUGH TO HAVE ALLOWED HIM TO FALL THROUGH, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) claim. Plaintiff’s leg fell through a one foot wide, twelve feet long, gap in the elevated platform he was working on. The fact that plaintiff could have fallen all the way through the gap entitled him to summary judgment. Although there may have been boards to cover the gap nearby, there was no evidence plaintiff was directed to cover the gap with the boards:

The opening presented an elevation-related risk, rather than a usual and ordinary danger of working on a construction site, because it was of sufficient size that claimant could have fallen entirely through to a lower level; therefore, Labor Law § 240 (1) applies to this accident because it was caused by a failure of the suspended metal deck — which was functioning as a scaffold — to provide adequate protection, even though claimant did not fall entirely through the opening … . …

… [T]here is no evidence in the record that claimant received any instruction or directive that would establish that he knew that he was responsible for either covering any openings, or requesting that they be covered by coworkers, before beginning work (see id.). Accordingly, we conclude that the Court of Claims properly determined that claimant was not the sole proximate cause of the accident … . . Santos v State of New York, 2019 NY Slip Op 01479, Third Dept 2-28-19

 

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STOCKING SHELVES WAS PART OF A LARGER RENOVATION PROJECT AND THEREFORE A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) action should have been denied. Plaintiff was stocking shelves when he fell 20 feet. There was a question of fact whether stocking shelves was part of the larger renovation project and therefore covered under Labor Law 240 (1):

… [T]he warehouse defendants’ submissions failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff’s activity in stocking shelves was not performed as part of the larger renovation project that he had been hired to complete on the premises, including assembly of the shelving structures and other tasks attendant to preparing the warehouse to receive … stock merchandise … . Bonilla-Reyes v Ribellino, 2019 NY Slip Op 01193, Second Dept 2-20-19

 

PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS HIRED TO MONITOR ASBESTOS LEVELS AT THE WORK SITE, AND WHO FELL AT THE SITE, WAS ENGAGED IN AN ACTIVITY COVERED BY THE LABOR LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) and 200 causes of action should not have been granted. Plaintiff was hired to test the air for asbestos at the construction site. He fell when he stepped on a milk crate which was allegedly used by workers to access a scaffold. The court noted that the type of inspection work done by the plaintiff was covered by the Labor Law:

Whether inspection work falls within the purview of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) “must be determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on the context of the work” … . Here, the plaintiff, an environmental technician tasked with ensuring that asbestos was properly removed from the school, was a “covered” person under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) because “his inspections were essential, ongoing, and more than mere observation” … . Channer v ABAX Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01053, Second Dept 2-13-19

 

 

INJURY FROM A FALLING BLOCK AND CHAIN USED TO REPLACE A ROLL UP DOOR WAS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) BUT NOT UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action, but defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action. “The plaintiff allege[d] that he was injured … when a differential block and chain fell onto his head as he and his coworkers were preparing a hoisting apparatus to remove and replace a broken roll-up gate on the defendants’ premises:”

” [T]he statutory requirement that workers be provided with proper protection extends not only to the hazards of building materials falling,’ but to the hazards of defective parts of safety devices falling from an elevated level to the ground'” … . Here, the defendants are liable whether the plaintiff’s coworker accidently dropped the differential while preparing to use the hoisting apparatus to remove the old roll-up gate, or the differential fell because it was inadequately secured … . …

However, unlike Labor Law § 240, which includes repair work, Labor Law § 241(6) is limited to those areas in which construction, excavation, or demolition work is being performed (compare Labor Law § 240[1], with Labor Law § 241[6]). In this case, Labor Law § 241(6) is inapplicable because the plaintiff was not performing work in the context of construction, demolition, or excavation … . Barrios v 19-19 24th Ave. Co., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 01046, Second Dept 2-13-19

 

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