You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law
,

PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S LADDER SHIFTED AND HE FELL, HEARSAY IN A REPORT WHICH CONSTITUTED A MISTRANSLATION OF THE PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT DID NOT RAISE A TRIABLE ISSUE OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action based upon his fall from a ladder which shifted. The hearsay evidence in a report which mistranslated plaintiff’s statement using the word “stairs” rather than “ladder” (the Spanish word means both) did not create an issue of fact. The court noted that the tenant who hired plaintiff’s employer and the property owner were liable:

Defendants … failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Hearsay, standing alone, is insufficient to defeat summary judgment. The mistranslated statement in the C-3 report (“while walking I fell down stairs”) does not qualify as a prior inconsistent statement or as a business record so as to fit within an exception to the hearsay rule … . The declaration against interest hearsay exception to the hearsay rule is likewise inapplicable inasmuch as, among other reasons, the declarant was indisputably unaware that the statement was adverse when made … .

Defendants, as the proponents of the evidence, were obligated to show that plaintiff was the source of the information recorded in the C-3 indicating that he fell from “stairs,” and that “the translation was provided by a competent, objective interpreter whose translation was accurate, a fact generally established by calling the translator to the stand” … . This defendants have failed to do. Nava-Juarez v Mosholu Fieldston Realty, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 08744, First Dept 12-20-18

ACCIDENT REPORTS

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL OCCURRED ON DEBRIS IN A WALKWAY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NYCRR IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION, HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE FALL OCCURRED OUTSIDE THE ENTRANCE TO A SHANTY, THE NYCRR PROVISION WHICH PERTAINS TO PASSAGEWAYS WAS NOT APPLICABLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Tom, modifying Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about the applicability of certain provisions of the New York Code Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) to plaintiff’s accident in this Labor Law 241(6), 200 and common law negligence action. Plaintiff slipped and fell on snow covered pipes near the entrance to the employer’s work site shanty. The Labor Law 241(6) cause of action predicated on a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1,7(d) should not have dismissed because there is a question of fact whether the slip and fall occurred in a “walkway.” The Labor Law 241(6) cause of action predicated on a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1), which deals with “passageways” as opposed to “walkways,” was properly dismissed:

The Labor Law § 241(6) claim predicated on a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) should not have been dismissed because there was an issue of fact as to whether the accident occurred in a walkway. There were conflicting accounts of whether the pipes were located in a manner that impeded ingress and egress into the shanty. …

… .[I]n contrast to 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) which pertains to slipping hazards on a “floor, passageway, walkway, scaffold, platform or other elevated working surface,” 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1) is limited to passageways. A “passageway” is commonly defined and understood to be “a typically long narrow way connecting parts of a building” and synonyms include the words corridor or hallway … . In other words, it pertains to an interior or internal way of passage inside a building. Quigley v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2018 NY Slip Op 08577, First Dept 12-13-18

 

, ,

MOTION TO DEEM NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED ONE DAY LATE TIMELY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT)

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner’s motion to deem the notice of claim timely filed should have been granted even if the excuse for the delay was not reasonable. The notice of claim was one day late:

CUCF [defendant City University Construction Fund] acquired actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim within a reasonable time after the expiration of the 90-day statute of limitations period due to the fact that petitioner filed his notice of claim only one day late, on the 91st day after the accident occurred. Moreover, the notice of claim provides the essential facts constituting the claim and further describes CUCF’s alleged negligence and alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6) and 200, and certain Industrial Code provisions.

Additionally, petitioner has demonstrated that his one-day delay in serving the notice of claim on CUCF did not substantially prejudice CUCF’s defense on the merits. CUCF had actual knowledge of the facts constituting petitioner’s claim only one day after the expiration of the 90-day statutory period and thus, had ample opportunity to conduct a thorough investigation. …

Even if petitioner’s excuse for the delay in filing the notice of claim, specifically, that such delay was due to a clerical error made by the process server, was unreasonable, “the absence of a reasonable excuse is not, standing alone, fatal to the application,” especially in a case such as this one where respondent had actual notice of the essential facts constituting petitioner’s claim and where respondent was not prejudiced by the delay … . Matter of Dominguez v City Univ. of N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 08084, First Dept 11-27-18

MUNICIPAL LAW (NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO DEEM NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED ONE DAY LATE TIMELY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (MUNICIPAL LAW, NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO DEEM NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED ONE DAY LATE TIMELY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW, (NOTICE OF CLAIM, MOTION TO DEEM NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED ONE DAY LATE TIMELY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/NOTICE OF CLAIM (MUNICIPAL LAW,  MOTION TO DEEM NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED ONE DAY LATE TIMELY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

ANTISUBROGATION RULE BARRED PLAINTIFF INSURER’S CAUSES OF ACTION, THE UNDERLYING ACTION ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW VIOLATIONS STEMMING FROM A CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in this construction accident case with multiple subcontractors, insurers and insureds, determined that the antisubrogation rule barred plaintiff-insurer’s causes of action:

The nonparty-respondent The New School (hereinafter TNS) entered into a contract with the nonparty-respondent Tishman Construction Corporation of New York (hereinafter Tishman) for the building of a new facility. Pursuant to the agreement, Tishman entered into trade contracts with various subcontractors, including … the defendant subcontractors. Tishman also contracted with nonparty … Geller to provide electrical services.

The defendant subcontractors elected to participate in a Contractor Controlled Insurance Program (hereinafter the CCIP) implemented by Tishman. Geller did not participate in the CCIP, and instead obtained a policy of insurance issued by the plaintiff, Wausau Underwriters Insurance Company … . As required by the trade contract, both TNS and Tishman were named as additional insureds under the Wausau policy.

The nonparty Harripersaud …, an employee of Geller, allegedly was injured when he tripped and fell while working at the construction site. Harripersaud commenced a personal injury action … against TNS and Tishman, alleging negligence and violations of the Labor Law. Tishman’s insurer tendered the complaint to the plaintiff, which accepted the tender and agreed to defend and indemnify Tishman and TNS. Subsequently, the plaintiff, as subrogee for Tishman and TNS, commenced this action against the defendant subcontractors. Tishman and TNS moved for leave to intervene and …to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiff cross-moved to consolidate this action with the Harripersaud personal injury action. …

The antisubrogation rule operates to bar the plaintiff’s causes of action. Under the antisubrogation rule, “an insurer has no right of subrogation against its own insured for a claim arising from the very risk for which the insured was covered” .. . This rule prevents an insurer from passing its losses to its own insured … . Here, the defendant subcontractors were members of the CCIP, and the CCIP imposed a $500,000 retention obligation on Tishman, as to each occurrence under the policy. Accordingly, the antisubrogation rule bars Tishman and TNS from asserting claims against the defendant subcontractors… . Inasmuch as the antisubrogation rule would bar Tishman and TNS from asserting causes of action against the defendant subcontractors, it bars the plaintiff’s causes of action as well. A subrogee “is subject to any defenses or claims which may be raised against the subrogor. Thus, a subrogee may not acquire any greater rights than the subrogor” … . Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co. v Gamma USA, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 08055, Second Dept 11-21-18

INSURANCE LAW (ANTISUBROGATION RULE BARRED PLAINTIFF INSURER’S CAUSES OF ACTION, THE UNDERLYING ACTION ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW VIOLATIONS STEMMING FROM A CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT))/ANTISUBROGATION RULE (INSURANCE LAW, ANTISUBROGATION RULE BARRED PLAINTIFF INSURER’S CAUSES OF ACTION, THE UNDERLYING ACTION ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW VIOLATIONS STEMMING FROM A CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (INSURANCE LAW, ANTISUBROGATION RULE BARRED PLAINTIFF INSURER’S CAUSES OF ACTION, THE UNDERLYING ACTION ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW VIOLATIONS STEMMING FROM A CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT))/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (INSURANCE LAW, ANTISUBROGATION RULE BARRED PLAINTIFF INSURER’S CAUSES OF ACTION, THE UNDERLYING ACTION ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW VIOLATIONS STEMMING FROM A CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT))

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED OTHER SAFETY DEVICES (LADDERS, SCAFFOLDS) WERE AVAILABLE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS ACTIONS WERE NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly denied. Plaintiff was directed to repair the top rung of a permanent ladder which was missing a bolt. Plaintiff tried to pull himself up by grabbing the top rung which allegedly gave way causing him to fall. Plaintiff testified there were other safety devices (ladders, scaffolding) he could have used and did not demonstrate his actions did not constitute the sole proximate cause of his injuries:

“The single decisive question in determining whether Labor Law § 240(1) is applicable is whether the plaintiff’s injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential” … .

In order to obtain summary judgment on the issue of liability on a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, a plaintiff is required to demonstrate, prima facie, that there was a violation of the statute and that the violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries … . “Merely because a worker is injured while working above ground does not ipso facto mean that the injury resulted from an elevation-related risk contemplated by Section 240(1) of the Labor Law'” … .

Here, the plaintiffs failed to establish, prima facie, that there was a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), or that the injured plaintiff’s actions were not the sole proximate cause of his injuries…  In support of their motion, the plaintiffs submitted the injured plaintiff’s deposition testimony in which he stated that he fell when the top rung of the ship’s ladder, which he knew was missing a bolt and which he had been sent up to the roof to replace, detached while he was in the process of climbing the ladder and after he had attempted to pull himself up by placing his hand on the top rung. The injured plaintiff also testified at his deposition that there were other ladders and pipe scaffolding available to use at the jobsite. Jones v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 07708, Second Dept 11-14-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED OTHER SAFETY DEVICES (LADDERS, SCAFFOLDS) WERE AVAILABLE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS ACTIONS WERE NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES (SECOND DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED OTHER SAFETY DEVICES (LADDERS, SCAFFOLDS) WERE AVAILABLE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS ACTIONS WERE NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES (SECOND DEPT))/SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED OTHER SAFETY DEVICES (LADDERS, SCAFFOLDS) WERE AVAILABLE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS ACTIONS WERE NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A TIPPING LADDER, FACTUAL ASSERTIONS IN A MEMO OF LAW OPPOSING PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PRESERVED ISSUES FOR APPEAL, PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S STATEMENT TO HIS WIFE IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS A DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff-decedent’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should not have been granted. Decedent’s statement to his wife in the emergency room, to the effect he should not have used the ladder as he did, was admissible as a declaration against interest. There was evidence from a co-worker that the ladder may not have been the cause of decedent’s injuries, i.e., there was evidence decedent was suffering chest pains 10 feet away from the ladder, which was upright. The court noted that factual assertions included in a memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiff-decedent’s motion were properly considered and preserved issues for appeal:

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim by presenting decedent’s statement that he was working on a ladder when it started to move, and when he tried to stabilize the ladder, it tipped and struck him in the chest … . Plaintiff was not “required to present further evidence that the ladder was defective” … .

However, defendants raised triable issues of fact as to whether decedent’s injuries were caused by an accident involving a ladder. Two accident reports set forth his alleged statement that he was working on the ladder when he started feeling chest pains and his legs became “unsteady” or “wobbly.” Moreover, decedent’s coworker, who was working in the same apartment unit separated from decedent by a concrete wall but went over to decedent’s area, not in response to any commotion but for routine purposes, saw that the ladder was in the upright position about 10 feet away from decedent when he expressed that he was suffering from chest pains … . Although decedent was disoriented and unable to answer basic questions at some points, he eventually became alert while in the hospital, yet his medical records do not refer to any ladder accident.

Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, defendants preserved their arguments about triable issues of fact by asserting them in their memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiff’s partial summary judgment motion. Caminiti v Extell W. 57th St. LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 07667, First Dept 11-13-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A TIPPING LADDER, FACTUAL ASSERTIONS IN A MEMO OF LAW OPPOSING PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PRESERVED ISSUES FOR APPEAL, PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S STATEMENT TO HIS WIFE IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS A DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A TIPPING LADDER, FACTUAL ASSERTIONS IN A MEMO OF LAW OPPOSING PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PRESERVED ISSUES FOR APPEAL, PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S STATEMENT TO HIS WIFE IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS A DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST (FIRST DEPT))/DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST  (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A TIPPING LADDER, FACTUAL ASSERTIONS IN A MEMO OF LAW OPPOSING PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PRESERVED ISSUES FOR APPEAL, PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S STATEMENT TO HIS WIFE IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS A DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A TIPPING LADDER, FACTUAL ASSERTIONS IN A MEMO OF LAW OPPOSING PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PRESERVED ISSUES FOR APPEAL, PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S STATEMENT TO HIS WIFE IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS A DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST (FIRST DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (EVIDENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A TIPPING LADDER, FACTUAL ASSERTIONS IN A MEMO OF LAW OPPOSING PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PRESERVED ISSUES FOR APPEAL, PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S STATEMENT TO HIS WIFE IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS A DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST (FIRST DEPT))/APPEALS (PRESERVATION, (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A TIPPING LADDER, FACTUAL ASSERTIONS IN A MEMO OF LAW OPPOSING PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PRESERVED ISSUES FOR APPEAL, PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S STATEMENT TO HIS WIFE IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS A DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST (FIRST DEPT))

DEFENDANTS DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MEANS AND MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK. LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action were properly dismissed because the plaintiff’s injuries resulted from the means and manner of work and defendants did not exercise supervisory control  over plaintiff’s work:

“It is settled law that where the alleged defect or dangerous condition arises from the contractor’s methods and the owner exercises no supervisory control over the operation, no liability attaches to the owner under the common law or under section 200 of the Labor Law”… . “Defendants moving for summary judgment on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action may thus show their entitlement to summary judgment by establishing that plaintiff’s accident resulted from the manner in which the work was performed, not from any dangerous condition on the premises, and [that] defendants exercised no supervisory control over the work’ “… . Here, defendants established that the wires hanging above the roof of the garage did not, as alleged by plaintiff, constitute a “tripping and walking hazard” along an area of the property leading to the work site; instead, the alleged defect arose from plaintiff’s method of performing the work by foregoing appropriate, authorized means of obtaining access to the utility pole and deciding to traverse the pitched roof of the garage over which the wires hung … . Inasmuch as defendants exercised no supervisory control over the injury-producing work, defendants established their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the section 200 and common-law negligence causes of action … . Anderson v National Grid USA Serv. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 07572, Fourth Dept 11-9-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (DEFENDANTS DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MEANS AND MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK. LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

MOTION SEEKING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION ON ONE GROUND DID NOT JUSTIFY, SUA SPONTE, SEARCHING THE RECORD AND GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FOURTH DEPT).

he Fourth Department, reversing (modifying Supreme Court), determined a motion seeking summary judgment on the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action should not have been granted on a ground not raised in the motion. Defendants alleged the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action should be dismissed because plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The judge, sua sponte, searched the record and granted summary judgment on a different ground:

… [T]he court erred in searching the record and granting summary judgment to plaintiff on his Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. Contrary to plaintiff’s assertion, although defendants did not advance their contention before the trial court, we conclude that the contention is properly before us because defendants lacked an opportunity to raise it at any time before this appeal … . Further, ” [a] motion for summary judgment on one claim or defense does not provide a basis for searching the record and granting summary judgment on an unrelated claim or defense’ ” … . Here, the only issue raised with respect to the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action was on defendants’ motion, wherein they asserted that dismissal was warranted on the ground that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The court therefore erred in granting summary judgment to plaintiff based on alleged violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1) (c) and 23-3.3 (c). Lord v Whelan & Curry Constr. Servs., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07563, Fourth Dept 11-9-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, MOTION SEEKING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION ON ONE GROUND DID NOT JUSTIFY, SUA SPONTE, SEARCHING THE RECORD AND GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FOURTH DEPT))/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION SEEKING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION ON ONE GROUND DID NOT JUSTIFY, SUA SPONTE, SEARCHING THE RECORD AND GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FOURTH DEPT))/JUDGES   (CIVIL PROCEDURE, MOTION SEEKING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION ON ONE GROUND DID NOT JUSTIFY, SUA SPONTE, SEARCHING THE RECORD AND GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FOURTH DEPT))/SUA SPONTE LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, MOTION SEEKING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION ON ONE GROUND DID NOT JUSTIFY, SUA SPONTE, SEARCHING THE RECORD AND GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FOURTH DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ARGUMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S REPLY PAPERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should have been granted, noting that plaintiff’s argument in the reply papers should have been considered because it was a response to defendants’ opposition motion:

Plaintiff was injured when a metal shim plate affixed to a steel column, that was being installed as part of a temporary truss system, suddenly detached and hit him in the head. Plaintiff established that the accident was proximately caused by the undisputed failure of safety devices that were supposed to afford proper protection against the elevation-related risks that plaintiff faced during the installation of the column being hoisted into place … . The tack welds used to secure the metal shim plate to the column were “safety devices” for the purposes of Labor Law § 240(1) because they were intended to be a temporary measure to keep the shim plate attached to the column during installation … . The welds were to be removed once the column was in place, at which time the plates would be permanently bolted into place. The evidence established that the accident occurred when the welds failed, inasmuch as the shim plate, which weighed between 200 and 400 pounds, was welded on only one side of the metal column … . Thus, the shim plate “fell because of the inadequacy of a safety device. . .[that was] put in place as to give proper protection for” plaintiff, entitling him to partial summary judgment … .

The motion court should have considered plaintiff’s reply argument that the one-sided tack welds were insufficient to safely secure the shim plate to the column because it was made in response to defendants’ opposition to the motion … . Keerdoja v Legacy Yards Tenant, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 07537, First Dept 11-8-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ARGUMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S REPLY PAPERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (REPLY PAPERS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ARGUMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S REPLY PAPERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT))/REPLY (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ARGUMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S REPLY PAPERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT))

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK WHEN HE FELL, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined defendant’s summary judgment motion on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly granted. Although plaintiff fell when attempting to replace light bulbs in a strobe light on top of a van, he was not involved in construction work:

Labor Law § 240(1) “does not cover routine maintenance done outside the context of construction work” … . The replacement of “components that require replacement in the course of normal wear and tear” constitutes routine maintenance … . At the time of his fall, the plaintiff was engaged in the task of replacing burnt out light bulbs, which constitutes routine maintenance and therefore falls outside of the scope of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, his work did not take place in the context of a larger project which “encompassed activity protected under the statute … . Trotman v Verizon Communications, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07483, Second Dept 11-7-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK WHEN HE FELL, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND 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