You are here: / 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),

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))

, , , ,

ACTION ALLEGING LEAD POISONING IN UTERO FROM FATHER’S CLOTHES WHICH WERE SATURATED WITH LEAD AND OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AT WORK DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the action based upon exposure to lead in utero was properly dismissed. Plaintiff alleged his father’s clothes were saturated with lead at work:

At common law, employers have a duty to provide a safe workplace, but this duty has been limited to employees (see Labor Law § 200…). It has not, as the plaintiff contends, been extended to encompass individuals who were not employed at the worksite such as the plaintiff or his mother during her pregnancy … .

While “[a] landowner generally must exercise reasonable care, with regard to any activities which he carries on, for the protection of those outside of his premises'” … , the facts alleged in this case differ from those to which a landowner’s duty to exercise reasonable care for the protection of individuals off site has been held to extend … .

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the alleged violations of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (hereinafter OSHA) regulations … , the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970 , specifically 29 USC § 654(a), and Labor Law § 27-a do not constitute negligence per se. The violation of OSHA regulations provides only evidence of negligence … . Moreover, neither the plaintiff nor his mother during her pregnancy belonged to the class intended to be protected by OSHA or its implementing regulations, 29 USC § 654(a), or Labor Law § 27-a, namely employees … . Campanelli v Long Is. Light. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 06225, Second Dept 9-26-18

NEGLIGENCE (ACTION ALLEGING LEAD POISONING IN UTERO FROM FATHER’S CLOTHES WHICH WERE SATURATED WITH LEAD AND OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AT WORK DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW  (ACTION ALLEGING LEAD POISONING IN UTERO FROM FATHER’S CLOTHES WHICH WERE SATURATED WITH LEAD AND OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AT WORK DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/LABOR LAW (ACTION ALLEGING LEAD POISONING IN UTERO FROM FATHER’S CLOTHES WHICH WERE SATURATED WITH LEAD AND OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AT WORK DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/TOXIC TORTS  (ACTION ALLEGING LEAD POISONING IN UTERO FROM FATHER’S CLOTHES WHICH WERE SATURATED WITH LEAD AND OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AT WORK DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/ENVIRONMENTAL LAW  (ACTION ALLEGING LEAD POISONING IN UTERO FROM FATHER’S CLOTHES WHICH WERE SATURATED WITH LEAD AND OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AT WORK DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

,

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS BORROWED A LIFT FROM DEFENDANT MIS, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED USING THE LIFT, THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST MIS WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS INAPPLICABLE, BUT THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST MIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that summary judgment was properly granted for the Labor Law 200 cause of action, but should not have been granted on the negligence cause of action. Plaintiff was injured using a telescoping lift. The lift belonged to MIS and defendant property owners had borrowed it. The Labor Law 200 action against MIS was dismissed because Labor Law 200 applies only to owners, contractors and their agents. The negligence action against MIS should not have been dismissed because MIS did not demonstrate the lift was not in a defective or dangerous condition:

We agree with the Supreme Court's determination granting that branch of MIS's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 insofar as asserted against it. “Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty imposed on owners, contractors, and their agents to provide workers with a safe place to work”… . The evidence MIS submitted in support of its motion established, prima facie, that MIS was not an owner, contractor, or agent with regard to the plaintiff's work … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The Supreme Court should have denied that branch of MIS's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging common-law negligence insofar as asserted against it. Contrary to its sole contention regarding this cause of action, MIS failed to establish, prima facie, that the lift was not in a defective or dangerous condition. Hill v Mid Is. Steel Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 06230, Second Dept 9-26-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS BORROWED A LIFT FROM DEFENDANT MIS, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED USING THE LIFT, THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST MIS WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS INAPPLICABLE, BUT THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST MIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE  (DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS BORROWED A LIFT FROM DEFENDANT MIS, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED USING THE LIFT, THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST MIS WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS INAPPLICABLE, BUT THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST MIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

REMOVING RENTED AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT FROM A HOSPITAL CONSTITUTED A COVERED “ALTERATION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, determined that plaintiff's decedent was engaged in an “alteration” within the meaning of Labor Law 240 (1) when he was crushed by an air conditioning unit (a chiller) that was being hoisted. A hospital had rented the chiller as a supplement to the air conditioning system during the warmer months. The chiller was being readied for return to the lessor when the accident happened. The court found that air conditioning is essential to the functioning of the hospital, noting that operating rooms must be kept at 62 degrees:

Here, the work being performed was a significant change to the hospital's air conditioning system, which the hospital must operate in warm weather in order to meet its regulatory requirements. Like the application of “bomb blast” film to the lobby windows in Belding, the deinstallation and removal of the rented chiller “altered the configuration or composition of the structure by changing the way the [hospital buildings] react to . . . the elements” (Belding, 14 NY3d at 753). Moreover, like the dismantling and removal of the air handlers in [Panek v County of Albany, 99 NY2d 452 (2003)], disconnecting and removing the rented chiller and generator was a significant undertaking, was not simple, routine, or cosmetic, and fundamentally altered the function of a significant building system, the hospital's air conditioning system. As in Panek, the project took more than a day to complete. The qualifying work in both Belding and Panek appears to have been performed by one person. In contrast, here, the work was complex enough that it required the labor of employees of the hospital, the contractor and the multiple subcontractors. It required shutting off the valves on the hospital's chilled water supply and return in the mechanical room, unbolting and unscrewing approximately 125 feet of heavy, nonbending hose from the chilled water supply and riser; draining the water from the hoses and standby chiller; dismantling the scaffolding that served as a bridge carrying the hoses from the mechanical room over the sidewalk to the chiller; dismantling the fencing around the chiller and generator; closing the street outside the hospital; using lifting equipment to lower the hoses from the roof; and using a boom, chains, shackles, slings, and hooks to raise the trailer and chiller so that the decedent and his coworker could remove the wood blocks that leveled the trailer and chiller, in order to allow for the trailer to be removed. Under these circumstances, we find that the work decedent was engaged in constituted an alteration under Labor Law § 240. Mananghaya v Bronx-Lebanon Hosp. Ctr. 2018 NY Slip Op 06061. First Dept 9-13-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (REMOVING RENTED AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT FROM A HOSPITAL CONSTITUTED A COVERED “ALTERATION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT))/ALTERATION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, REMOVING RENTED AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT FROM A HOSPITAL CONSTITUTED A COVERED “ALTERATION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT))/AIR-CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, REMOVING RENTED AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT FROM A HOSPITAL CONSTITUTED A COVERED “ALTERATION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (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