You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law

COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), THE COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE, EVEN IF IT DID NOT EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the company which hired plaintiff’s employer, New York Plumbing, and the property owner,, Park Plaza, were liable for plaintiff’s fall, pursuant to Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6). New York Plumbing was liable because it had the authority to supervise plaintiff’s work, even if it did not exercise that authority. Park Plaza was not entitled to summary judgment on its indemnification action against New York Plumbing because it did not demonstrated New York Plumbing exercised actual supervision over plaintiff’s work. Plaintiff fell from the top of a temporary oil storage tank which was being emptied and cleaned:

Contrary to New York Plumbing’s contention, the plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, that New York Plumbing had the authority to exercise control over the plaintiff’s work, even if it did not actually do so, and that New York Plumbing was therefore a proper defendant under the Labor Law … . …

Moreover, the plaintiff demonstrated that he was engaged in a protected activity under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) when he was injured … .

The plaintiff demonstrated 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 insofar as asserted against the Park Plaza defendants [the property owner] and New York Plumbing. The plaintiff submitted evidence that he fell from a 12-to 16-foot high surface, and that he had not been provided with safety devices to protect him from such a fall … . …

The plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action was predicated on an alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) … . The Park Plaza defendants and New York Plumbing failed to establish, prima facie, that a slippery condition on the oil tank was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s fall … .

Finally, the Park Plaza defendants did not demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on their cross claim for common-law indemnification against New York Plumbing, as their submissions did not establish, prima facie, that New York Plumbing exercised actual supervision over the plaintiff’s work … . Padilla v Park Plaza Owners Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 07317, Second Dept 10-31-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), THE COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE, EVEN IF IT DID NOT EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT))/INDEMNIFICATION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), THE COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE, EVEN IF IT DID NOT EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT))

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER USING AN A-FRAME LADDER IN THE CLOSED POSITION WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should not have been damaged. Plaintiff fell when his A-frame ladder, which was in the closed position, slipped. There existed questions of fact whether using the A-frame ladder in the closed position was the sole proximate cause of the fall:

“A worker’s decision to use an A-frame ladder in the closed position is not a per se reason to declare him the sole proximate cause of an accident” … . Here, the defendants failed to satisfy their prima facie burden of establishing that the plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of his accident. Specifically, the defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues as to whether the ladder could have been placed in a manner that would have allowed the plaintiff to safely perform the work… , nor did the defendants establish that the plaintiff used the ladder in such a manner without the tacit approval of his supervisor … . Gillett v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 07102, Second Dept 10-24-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER USING AN A-FRAME LADDER IN THE CLOSED POSITION WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER USING AN A-FRAME LADDER IN THE CLOSED POSITION WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER USING AN A-FRAME LADDER IN THE CLOSED POSITION WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER, EVIDENCE THAT BEAMS HAD BEEN CUT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) action against his employer (a demolition company) was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Plaintiff fell when the roof of the building collapsed. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against the owner of the building was properly denied because there was a question of fact whether the collapse of the roof was foreseeable:

In order for liability to be imposed under Labor Law § 240(1), there must be “a foreseeable risk of injury from an elevation-related hazard . . . , as defendants are liable for all normal and foreseeable consequences of their acts'” … . In support of his motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the partial collapse of the roof and, in turn, the need for safety devices to protect the plaintiff from that hazard, were foreseeable … . The plaintiff’s deposition testimony that he was told that the roof collapsed because the beams from the third-floor ceiling had been cut constituted inadmissible hearsay … . Paguay v Cup of Tea, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06926, Second Dept 10-17-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER (SECOND DEPT))/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION  (PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (HEARSAY, PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER, EVIDENCE THAT BEAMS HAD BEEN CUT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT))/HEARSAY (PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER, EVIDENCE THAT BEAMS HAD BEEN CUT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT))

PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD THAT DID NOT HAVE SAFETY RAILINGS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT),

The Second Department determined plaintiff was properly awarded summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action. Plaintiff fell from a scaffold that did not have safety railings:

The plaintiff met his prima facie burden of demonstrating a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) and that this violation was a proximate cause of his injuries, through his uncontradicted deposition testimony that he fell from a scaffold that did not have safety railings and that he was not provided with a safety device to prevent him from falling … . Similarly, the plaintiff met his prima facie burden with respect to his Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action by establishing that the scaffold was a movable scaffold that lacked safety railings in violation of 12 NYCRR 23-5.18(b) … . In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Morocho v Boulevard Gardens Owners Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 06730 Second Dept 10-10-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD THAT DID NOT HAVE SAFETY RAILINGS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1 AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SCAFFOLDS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD THAT DID NOT HAVE SAFETY RAILINGS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1 AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED OVER CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTION, INDEMNIFICATION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE DEFENDANTS COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE FREE FROM NEGLIGENCE, BUT THE CONTRIBUTION CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED, CRITERIA FOR INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined that the contractual and common law indemnification causes of action against defendant STAT should have been dismissed, but the contribution cause of action properly survived summary judgment. Plaintiff alleged he slipped and fell on construction debris and brought actions under Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6). The indemnification causes of action should have been dismissed because the defendants (Granite and Kulka) would not be able to prove they were free from negligence. The contribution claim was viable because STAT employees played some role in the accumulation of the debris:

STAT demonstrated that Granite and Kulka had certain responsibilities with respect to the removal of the construction debris and, thus, that they would not be able to prove themselves free from negligence in the event that the injured plaintiff was successful on his claims against Granite (seeGeneral Obligations Law § 5-322.1 ,,,). For this same reason, STAT established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the common-law indemnification third third-party cause of action and cross claim against it … .

However, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination to deny those branches of STAT's motion which were for summary judgment dismissing Granite's third third-party cause of action for contribution and Kulka's cross claim for contribution. As opposed to indemnification, which shifts the entire liability to the negligent party, “where a party is held liable at least partially because of its own negligence, contribution against other culpable tort-feasors is the only available remedy” … . In the context of a construction site accident, where a plaintiff's injuries arise not from the manner in which the work was performed but rather due to an allegedly dangerous condition present thereat, liability under a common-law negligence theory “may be imposed upon a subcontractor where it had control over the work site and either created the allegedly dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it” … . Fedrich v Granite Bldg. 2, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06717, Second Dept 10-10-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED OVER CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTION, INDEMNIFICATION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE DEFENDANTS COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE FREE FROM NEGLIGENCE, BUT CONTRIBUTION CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED, CRITERIA FOR INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (SECOND DEPT))/INDEMNIFICATION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED OVER CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTION, INDEMNIFICATION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE DEFENDANTS COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE FREE FROM NEGLIGENCE, BUT CONTRIBUTION CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED, CRITERIA FOR INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRIBUTION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED OVER CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTION, INDEMNIFICATION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE DEFENDANTS COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE FREE FROM NEGLIGENCE, BUT CONTRIBUTION CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED, CRITERIA FOR INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (INDEMNIFICATION, LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED OVER CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTION, INDEMNIFICATION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE DEFENDANTS COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE FREE FROM NEGLIGENCE, BUT CONTRIBUTION CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED, CRITERIA FOR INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED OVER CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTION, INDEMNIFICATION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE DEFENDANTS COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE FREE FROM NEGLIGENCE, BUT CONTRIBUTION CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED, CRITERIA FOR INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION EXPLAINED IN SOME DEPTH (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN A POTENTIAL LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1), 241 (6) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner's request for leave to file a late notice of claim in a potential Labor Law 200, 240 (1) and 241 (6) action should not have been granted. Petitioner was struck by a falling plank when he was standing on a scaffold during renovation work at a school:

Although the petitioner made no attempt to proffer a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice claim, “[n]either the presence nor absence of any one factor is determinative”; thus, “[t]he absence of a reasonable excuse is not necessarily fatal” … .

The petitioner failed to establish that the municipal parties acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual, or within a reasonable time thereafter. Notably, the record is devoid of evidence showing that any of the municipal parties was aware, prior to the commencement of this proceeding, that the petitioner's accident had occurred—let alone that the petitioner was claiming violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) … . Contrary to the petitioner's contention, a delay of four months following the expiration of the 90-day notice period does not constitute a “reasonable time” within the meaning of General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) … .

Further, the petitioner failed to present “some evidence or plausible argument” supporting a finding that the municipal parties were not substantially prejudiced by the four-month delay from the expiration of the 90-day statutory period … . Matter of Moroz v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 06743, Second Dept 10-10-18

NEGLIGENCE (PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN A POTENTIAL LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1), 241 (6) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN A POTENTIAL LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1), 241 (6) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN A POTENTIAL LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1), 241 (6) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (NEGLIGENCE, NOTICE OF CLAIM, PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN A POTENTIAL LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1), 241 (6) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW, PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN A POTENTIAL LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1), 241 (6) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE PROJECT OWNER ARE LIABLE FOR THE INJURIES TO AN EMPLOYEE OF A SUBCONTRACTOR IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) LADDER CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that several causes of action in this Labor Law 240 (1) ladder-fall case should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff's employer (nonparty Capitol) was hired as a subcontractor by Ruggles, which had a contract for signage and awnings with the operator of the retail store for which the work was done (Express). Express had hired Russco to act as the general contractor for the renovation work. Russco had the authority to hire all subcontractors with the exception of the signage and awning work:

Russco's [the general contractor's] motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) claim as against it on the ground that it is not a proper defendant under the Labor Law was correctly denied as there is an issue of fact as to whether its obligations as the general contractor on the project extended to the work performed by plaintiff. … … [T]he contract … provides that Russco is responsible for “taking all reasonable safety precautions to prevent injury or death to persons or damage to property” and that such responsibility extends “to the protection of all employees on the Project and all other persons who may be affected by the Work in any way” … . * * *

Ruggles is a proper Labor Law § 240(1) defendant because it was a statutory agent of Express, the owner of the project. It is undisputed that Express hired Ruggles as the sole contractor responsible for the manufacture and installation of all signage and awning work on the project, which was the work that plaintiff was performing when he sustained his injuries. Although Russco may be found liable based on its site safety obligations with regard to the signage and awning work, there is no question that, pursuant to the contract between Ruggles and Express, Ruggles was delegated the supervision and control over such work. Moreover, Ruggles may not escape liability under Labor Law § 240(1) based on its delegation of the signage and awning work to Capitol, plaintiff's employer. White v 31-01 Steinway, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06685, First Dept 10-9-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE PROJECT OWNER ARE LIABLE FOR THE INJURIES TO AN EMPLOYEE OF A SUBCONTRACTOR IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) LADDER CASE (FIRST DEPT))/STATUTORY AGENTS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE PROJECT OWNER ARE LIABLE FOR THE INJURIES TO AN EMPLOYEE OF A SUBCONTRACTOR IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) LADDER CASE (FIRST DEPT))/AGENTS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, STATUTORY AGENTS, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE PROJECT OWNER ARE LIABLE FOR THE INJURIES TO AN EMPLOYEE OF A SUBCONTRACTOR IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) LADDER CASE (FIRST DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE PROJECT OWNER ARE LIABLE FOR THE INJURIES TO AN EMPLOYEE OF A SUBCONTRACTOR IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) LADDER CASE (FIRST DEPT))

,

LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action should not have been dismissed:

This Labor Law and common-law negligence action arises from injuries sustained by Michael W. Parkhurst (decedent) when he slipped and fell on plastic sheeting covering newly-laid carpet after descending a ladder while performing drywall finishing work. …

Where, as here, “the worker's injuries result from a dangerous condition at the work site rather than from the manner in which the work is performed, the general contractor or owner may be liable in common-law negligence and under Labor Law § 200 if it has control over the work site and [has created or has] actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition” … . “Thus, [d]efendants, as the parties seeking summary judgment dismissing those claims, were required to establish as a matter of law that they did not exercise any supervisory control over the general condition of the premises or that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition on the premises” … , and defendants failed to meet that burden here. Parkhurst v Syracuse Regional Airport Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 06670, Fourth Dept 10-5-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))

A COMPRESSOR ROLLING OFF A PALLET JACK ONTO PLAINTIFF’S ANKLE WAS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED ACCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1), REGULATION-VIOLATION RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, CRITERIA FOR LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department affirmed most of Supreme Court's rulings granting summary judgment to defendants in this Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6) and 200 action. Plaintiff was moving a heavy compressor on a pallet jack when a wheel on the jack hit a small piece of concrete and the compressor rolled off the pallet jack onto plaintiff's ankle. The court found that the compressor was not a falling object within the meaning of Labor Law 240 (1). Plaintiff's raising a regulation violation (re: the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action) for the first time in opposition papers did not preclude consideration of the argument because no new factual allegations were involved, no new theories of liability were presented, and there was no prejudice. The decision offers a comprehensive explanation of the criteria for all three of these Labor Law causes of action. With regard to the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action, the court wrote:

“The extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240(1) extend only to a narrow class of special hazards, and do not encompass any and all perils that may be connected in some tangential way with the effects of gravity'” … . In determining whether a plaintiff is entitled to the extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240(1), the “single decisive question [is] whether plaintiff's injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential” … . “Without a significant elevation differential, Labor Law § 240(1) does not apply, even if the injury is caused by the application of gravity on an object” … .

“With respect to falling objects, Labor Law § 240(1) applies where the falling of an object is related to a significant risk inherent in . . . the relative elevation . . . at which materials or loads must be positioned or secured'” … . Therefore, “a plaintiff must show more than simply that an object fell, thereby causing injury to a worker” … . “[A] plaintiff must show that, at the time the object fell, it was being hoisted or secured, or that the falling object required securing for the purposes of the undertaking” … . A plaintiff must also show that “the object fell . . . because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute” … .

We agree with the Supreme Court's granting of that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff's injuries were not caused by the elevation or gravity-related risks encompassed by Labor Law § 240(1) … . Simmons v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 06585, Second Dept 10-3-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (A COMPRESSOR ROLLING OFF A PALLET JACK ONTO PLAINTIFF'S ANKLE WAS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED ACCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1), REGULATION-VIOLATION RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, CRITERIA FOR LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT))/FALLING OBJECTS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, A COMPRESSOR ROLLING OFF A PALLET JACK ONTO PLAINTIFF'S ANKLE WAS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED ACCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1), REGULATION-VIOLATION RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, CRITERIA FOR LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT))/ELEVATION-RELATED RISKS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, A COMPRESSOR ROLLING OFF A PALLET JACK ONTO PLAINTIFF'S ANKLE WAS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED ACCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1), REGULATION-VIOLATION RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, CRITERIA FOR LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY THAT THE STEP LADDER WOBBLED CAUSING HIM TO FALL WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION, DESPITE THE LACK OF WITNESSES TO THE FALL, HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN THE ACCIDENT REPORT, AND A CONCLUSORY EXPERT AFFIDAVIT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff was properly granted summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) action. Plaintiff alleged the step ladder he was using wobbled causing him to fall. The fact that there were no witnesses to the incident did not preclude summary judgment:

Plaintiff's testimony that, as he was climbing down a six-foot scaffold, the scaffold wobbled, causing him to fall to the floor, establishes prima facie defendants' liability under Labor Law § 240(1) … . Plaintiff satisfied his burden of demonstrating that defendants failed to provide adequate safety devices to prevent him from falling when the scaffold moved … . The fact that plaintiff was the only witness to his accident does not preclude summary judgment in his favor, since nothing in the record controverts his account of the accident or calls his credibility into question… .

Defendants failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition, relying solely on hearsay statements in the accident report and the speculative opinion of their expert… . For the same reason, defendants failed to establish prima facie their freedom from liability. Rroku v West Rac Contr. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 06312, First Dept 9-27-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF'S TESTIMONY THAT THE STEP LADDER WOBBLED CAUSING HIM TO FALL WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION, DESPITE THE LACK OF WITNESSES TO THE FALL, HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN THE ACCIDENT REPORT, AND A CONCLUSORY EXPERT AFFIDAVIT (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF'S TESTIMONY THAT THE STEP LADDER WOBBLED CAUSING HIM TO FALL WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION, DESPITE THE LACK OF WITNESSES TO THE FALL, HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN THE ACCIDENT REPORT, AND A CONCLUSORY EXPERT AFFIDAVIT (FIRST DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF'S TESTIMONY THAT THE STEP LADDER WOBBLED CAUSING HIM TO FALL WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF'S FAVOR IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION, DESPITE THE LACK OF WITNESSES TO THE FALL, HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN THE ACCIDENT REPORT, AND A CONCLUSORY EXPERT AFFIDAVIT (FIRST DEPT))

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