Labor Law-Construction Law

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN A PLANK ON A SCAFFOLD HE WAS ERECTING BROKE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s (MJRB’S) motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) action should not have been granted. Plaintiff fell when a plank on a scaffold he was erecting broke:

… [T]he plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence that he was not provided with necessary protection from the gravity-related risk of his construction work, and that the absence of the necessary protection was a proximate cause of his injuries … . In opposition, MJRB failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . MJRB contends that the plaintiff’s failure to use a safety harness was the sole proximate cause of his accident. There was, however, no evidence that the plaintiff was informed as to where the harnesses were kept and that he was instructed in their use … . Moreover, MJRB’s contention that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident because the scaffold from which he fell was one which he himself was constructing is without merit … . Rapalo v MJRB Kings Highway Realty, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05512, Second Dept 7-25-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN A PLANK ON A SCAFFOLD HE WAS ERECTING BROKE (SECOND DEPT))/SCAFFOLDS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN A PLANK ON A SCAFFOLD HE WAS ERECTING BROKE (SECOND DEPT))

July 25, 2018

Labor Law-Construction Law

PLAINTIFF PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A LADDER, DEFENDANT WAS APPARENTLY LIABLE AS AN AGENT OF THE OWNER WITH AUTHORITY OVER SAFETY MEASURES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action stemming from a fall from a ladder which moved for no apparent reason. The court determined that the defendant, Arrow, which had contracted with plaintiff’s employer, was liable as an agent of the owner or general contractor because of its supervisory control and authority to enforce safety standards:

Labor Law § 240(1) applies to “contractors and owners and their agents”… . “A party is deemed to be an agent of an owner or general contractor under the Labor Law when it has supervisory control and authority over the work being done where a plaintiff is injured” … . “To impose such liability, the defendant must have the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury so as to enable it to avoid or correct the unsafe condition” … . The determinative factor is whether the defendant had “the right to exercise control over the work, not whether it actually exercised that right” … . Here, Arrow Steel had the authority to enforce safety standards and choose the subcontractor who did the asbestos work. Additionally, Arrow Steel directly entered into a contract with [plaintiff’s employer], and had the authority to exercise control over the work, even if it did not actually do so … . Cabrera v Arrow Steel Window Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05275, Second Dept 7-18-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A LADDER, DEFENDANT WAS APPARENTLY LIABLE AS AN AGENT OF THE OWNER WITH AUTHORITY OVER SAFETY MEASURES (SECOND DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A LADDER, DEFENDANT WAS APPARENTLY LIABLE AS AN AGENT OF THE OWNER WITH AUTHORITY OVER SAFETY MEASURES (SECOND DEPT))

July 18, 2018

Labor Law-Construction Law

PLAINTIFF, A HOMEOWNER WHOSE COMPANY HIRED DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR TO WORK AT PLAINTIFF’S HOME, WAS A PROPER PLAINTIFF UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS IN CONTROL OF THE WORK SITE AND HAD BEEN DELEGATED SITE SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was a proper plaintiff pursuant to Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6). Plaintiff owned a single family home and plaintiff’s company hired defendant subcontractor to work on plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff was inspecting defendant’s work when he slipped and fill on oil which allegedly came from defendant’s equipment. In addition, the Second Department determined there were questions of fact whether defendant had control of the work site and was delegated safety responsibilities:

Labor Law § 240(1) requires that persons “employed in,” inter alia, the “alteration” of a building be provided with proper protective devices. Labor Law § 241(6) requires contractors and owners and their agents who are performing excavation work to comply with the provisions of the Industrial Code to protect “the persons employed therein or lawfully frequenting such places.” “Employee” is defined in Labor Law § 2(5) as “a mechanic, workingman or laborer working for another for hire.” A plaintiff who seeks to recover under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) must show that he or she was both permitted to work on a building or structure and was hired by someone … . Those provisions may apply to the president of the general contractor for the project, who is inspecting work performed by subcontractors … . Inspecting the work on behalf of a general contractor is a protected activity covered by these Labor Law provision … . …

Here, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was working alone at the site and the plaintiff was merely on-site to inspect the progress of the work. The plaintiff further claims that he “did not direct or control the work . . . and played no role in implementing safety procedures or taking safety measures,” since safety measures were in the exclusive control of the defendant. Thus, although the defendant does not own the property and did not appear to be acting as a general contractor, there are triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant could be liable under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) on the ground that it had control of the work site and was delegated the duty to enforce safety protocols at the time the accident occurred. Eliassian v G.F. Constr., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05020, Second Dept 7-5-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW PLAINTIFF, A HOMEOWNER WHOSE COMPANY HIRED DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR TO WORK AT PLAINTIFF’S HOME, WAS A PROPER PLAINTIFF UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS IN CONTROL OF THE WORK SITE AND HAD BEEN DELEGATED SITE SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES (SECOND DEPT))

July 5, 2018

Labor Law-Construction Law

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS ACTED AS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR, THEY DID NOT SUPERVISE OR CONTROL ANY OF THE WORK, HOMEOWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the homeowners’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6) and 200 causes of action should have been granted. Although the homeowners acted as a general contractor, they did not supervise or control any of the work:

As the owners of a one-family dwelling who contracted for but did not direct or control the work, defendants are exempt from liability under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 … . “Whether an owner’s conduct amounts to directing or controlling the work depends upon the degree of supervision exercised over the method and manner in which the work is performed” … . Here, although defendants acted as general contractors on the construction of their home by obtaining the necessary permits, purchasing roofing materials, and hiring contractors to perform the construction work, defendants met their initial burden of demonstrating that they did not supervise or control the method or manner of plaintiff’s work … . …

“Where[, as here,] 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 Labor Law § 200” … . Bund v Higgins, 2018 NY Slip Op 04897, Fourth Dept 6-29-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS ACTED AS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR, THEY DID NOT SUPERVISE OR CONTROL ANY OF THE WORK, HOMEOWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/HOMEOWNERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS ACTED AS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR, THEY DID NOT SUPERVISE OR CONTROL ANY OF THE WORK, HOMEOWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

June 29, 2018

Labor Law-Construction Law

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STAIRWAY WHICH COLLAPSED WAS TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT, ONLY TEMPORARY STAIRWAYS ARE COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PROJECT MANAGER HAD SUFFICIENT SUPERVISORY CONTROL TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact whether the stairs which collapsed were temporary or permanent. If the stairs were temporary they would be considered the functional equivalent of a ladder and would be covered under Labor Law 240 (1). There was also a question of fact whether a project manager could be deemed a general contractor or agent of the owner with supervisory control and therefore potentially liable under Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6). There were also questions of fact whether the project manage was liable under Labor Law 200, depending on whether it had control over the work site or whether it had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition:

“A temporary staircase that is used for access to and from the upper levels of a house under construction is the functional equivalent of a ladder’ and falls within the designation of other devices’ within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1)” … . … “[I]t has repeatedly been held that a stairway which is, or is intended to be, permanent—even one that has not yet been anchored or secured in its designated location . . . , or completely constructed . . . —cannot be considered the functional equivalent of a ladder or other device as contemplated by section 240 (1)” … . …

” An entity is a contractor within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) if it had the power to enforce safety standards and choose responsible subcontractors . . . , and an entity is a general contractor if, in addition thereto, it was responsible for coordinating and supervising the . . . project’ ” … . While a construction manager “is generally not considered a contractor’ or owner’ within the meaning of section 240 (1) or section 241” … , a construction manager may nevertheless be “vicariously liable as an agent of the property owner . . . where the manager had the ability to control the activity which brought about the injury” … . “The label given a defendant, whether construction manager’ or general contractor,’ is not determinative . . . [inasmuch as] the core inquiry is whether the defendant had the authority to supervise or control the activity bringing about the injury so as to enable it to avoid or correct the unsafe condition’ ” … . Stiegman v Barden & Robeson Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 04865, Fourth Dept 6-29-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STAIRWAY WHICH COLLAPSED WAS TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT, ONLY TEMPORARY STAIRWAYS ARE COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PROJECT MANAGER HAD SUFFICIENT SUPERVISORY CONTROL TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 (FOURTH DEPT))/STAIRWAYS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STAIRWAY WHICH COLLAPSED WAS TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT, ONLY TEMPORARY STAIRWAYS ARE COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PROJECT MANAGER HAD SUFFICIENT SUPERVISORY CONTROL TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 (FOURTH DEPT))/PROJECT MANAGER (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STAIRWAY WHICH COLLAPSED WAS TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT, ONLY TEMPORARY STAIRWAYS ARE COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PROJECT MANAGER HAD SUFFICIENT SUPERVISORY CONTROL TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 (FOURTH DEPT))

June 29, 2018

Labor Law-Construction Law

THE PLACEMENT OF THE LADDER WAS DEEMED THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND PLAINTIFF HAD PLACED THE LADDER, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS WERE DEEMED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY PRECLUDING RECOVERY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined that plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of his fall from a ladder in this Labor Law 240 (1) case. The court determined it was the placement of the ladder which was the cause of the accident and defendant had placed the ladder:

Plaintiff alleged in his second amended complaint that he fell due to the placement of the ladder, and he admitted in his deposition testimony that he had placed the ladder himself. Plaintiff’s theory of liability is that the ladder was not an adequate safety device because it could not be placed directly below his work site. Defendants, however, submitted photographs and a video recording from their safety expert that depicted the expert placing the ladder directly under the work site and standing on it. Furthermore, plaintiff conceded in his deposition testimony that other safety devices were available at the site, and that he asked if they were available before using the ladder. Thus, we conclude that defendants established as a matter of law that the ladder was an adequate safety device and that plaintiff’s own conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Kipp v Marinus Homes, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04859, Fourth Dept 6-29-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (THE PLACEMENT OF THE LADDER WAS DEEMED THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND PLAINTIFF HAD PLACED THE LADDER, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS WERE DEEMED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY PRECLUDING RECOVERY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, THE PLACEMENT OF THE LADDER WAS DEEMED THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND PLAINTIFF HAD PLACED THE LADDER, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS WERE DEEMED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY PRECLUDING RECOVERY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, HE PLACEMENT OF THE LADDER WAS DEEMED THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND PLAINTIFF HAD PLACED THE LADDER, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS WERE DEEMED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY PRECLUDING RECOVERY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CASE (FOURTH DEPT))

June 29, 2018

Labor Law-Construction Law

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LADDERS WERE AVAILABLE, PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN AN INVERTED BUCKET HE WAS STANDING ON TIPPED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether ladders were available at the work site such that plaintiff did not need to stand on an inverted bucket to install sheetrock. Plaintiff was injured when the bucket tipped and he fell:

“Under Labor Law § 240(1), owners and general contractors, and their agents, have a nondelegable duty to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites” … . “To prevail on a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, a plaintiff must establish that the statute was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries” … . “Liability under section 240(1) does not attach when the safety devices that plaintiff alleges were absent were readily available at the work site, albeit not in the immediate vicinity of the accident, and plaintiff knew he was expected to use them but for no good reason chose not to do so, causing an accident. In such cases, plaintiff’s own negligence is the sole proximate cause of his injury”… .

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish 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. In support of his motion, the plaintiff submitted transcripts of his deposition, in which he testified that there were ladders and Bakers scaffolds kept on the job site. Lorde v Margaret Tietz Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr., 2018 NY Slip Op 04542, Second Dept 6-20-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LADDERS WERE AVAILABLE, PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN AN INVERTED BUCKET HE WAS STANDING ON TIPPED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LADDERS WERE AVAILABLE, PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN AN INVERTED BUCKET HE WAS STANDING ON TIPPED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

June 20, 2018

Labor Law-Construction Law

GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 OR COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s knee injury stemming from carrying a heavy beam down stairs was not covered under Labor Law 240 (1). The court further found that defendant general contractor (Talisen) did not exercise sufficient supervisory control over plaintiff’s work to be liable under Labor Law 200 or common law negligence:

Labor Law § 200 codifies the common-law duty imposed on an owner or a general contractor to provide construction site workers with a safe place to work … . Where a plaintiff’s claims implicate the means and methods of the work, an owner or a contractor will not be held liable under Labor Law § 200 unless it had the authority to supervise or control the performance of the work. General supervisory authority to oversee the progress of the work is insufficient to impose liability… . ” A defendant has the authority to control the work for the purposes of Labor Law § 200 when that defendant bears the responsibility for the manner in which the work is performed'” … . If the challenged means and methods of the work are those of a subcontractor, and the owner or contractor exercises no supervisory control over the work, no liability attaches under Labor Law § 200 or the common law … .

In this case, Talisen met its prima facie burden of demonstrating a lack of sufficient supervisory control over the plaintiff’s work to subject it to liability under either Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence. In support of its motion, Talisen presented the deposition testimony of its project superintendent as well as the owner of Premier showing that decisions regarding the means and methods for carrying the beam were the responsibility of Premier. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Sullivan v New York Athletic Club of City of N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 04591, Second Dept 6-20-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 OR COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT))/GENERAL CONTRACTOR (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 OR COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT))

June 20, 2018

Labor Law-Construction Law

KNEE INJURY CAUSED BY CARRYING A HEAVY STEEL BEAM DOWN STAIRS IS NOT A COVERED ACCIDENT UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly granted and defendant’s (Premier’s) motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff injured his knee carrying a heavy steel beam down some stairs. The court held that the incident was not encompassed by Labor Law 240 (1):

… [T]he plaintiff did not establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, since he failed to demonstrate that his injury was caused by an elevation-related hazard encompassed by Labor Law § 240(1). The plaintiff’s evidence demonstrated that the cause of his injury was the weight of the beam he was carrying. The mere fact that the plaintiff was injured by the weight of a heavy object being lifted or carried does not give rise to liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) … . The Court of Appeals has “repeatedly held, implicitly and explicitly, that it is not enough that a plaintiff’s injury flowed directly from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person, even where a device specified by the statute might have prevented the accident” … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1).

Premier established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action through evidence that the plaintiff was injured by the weight of the beam as opposed to an elevation-related risk … . Sullivan v New York Athletic Club of City of N.Y., 2018 NY Slip Op 04590, Second Dept 6-20-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (KNEE INJURY CAUSED BY CARRYING A HEAVY STEEL BEAM DOWN STAIRS IS NOT A COVERED ACCIDENT UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT))

June 20, 2018

Labor Law-Construction Law, Negligence

QUESTIONS OF FACT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), LABOR LAW 241 (6), AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS USING THE TOP HALF OF AN EXTENSION LADDER AND THE LADDER SLIPPED OUT FROM UNDER HIM (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined neither party was entitled to summary judgment on Labor Law 240 (1), Labor Law 241 (6) and common law negligence causes of action stemming from plaintiff’s use of the top half of an extension ladder that slipped out from under him. With respect to the common law negligence cause of action against the property owner, the court explained:

Where the injured worker’s employer provides the allegedly defective equipment, the analysis turns on whether the defendant owner had the authority to supervise or control the work … . Where, however, the defendant owner provides the allegedly defective equipment, the legal standard “is whether the owner created the dangerous or defective condition or had actual or constructive notice thereof” … , because in that situation the defendant property owner “is possessed of the authority, as owner, to remedy the condition” of the defective equipment … . Contrary to defendants’ contention, they failed to establish as a matter of law that they did not create the dangerous condition of the ladder or have either actual or constructive notice of it. Moreover, “the absence of rubber shoes on a ladder is a visible and apparent defect,’ evidence of which may be sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact on the issue of constructive notice” … . Sochan v Mueller, 2018 NY Slip Op 04457, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTIONS OF FACT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), LABOR LAW 241 (6), AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS USING THE TOP HALF OF AN EXTENSION LADDER AND THE LADDER SLIPPED OUT FROM UNDER HIM (FOURTH DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), LABOR LAW 241 (6), AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS USING THE TOP HALF OF AN EXTENSION LADDER AND THE LADDER SLIPPED OUT FROM UNDER HIM (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), LABOR LAW 241 (6), AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS USING THE TOP HALF OF AN EXTENSION LADDER AND THE LADDER SLIPPED OUT FROM UNDER HIM (FOURTH DEPT))

June 15, 2018

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN A PLANK ON A SCAFFOLD HE WAS ERECTING BROKE (SECOND DEPT).

PLAINTIFF PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A LADDER, DEFENDANT WAS APPARENTLY LIABLE AS AN AGENT OF THE OWNER WITH AUTHORITY OVER SAFETY MEASURES (SECOND DEPT).

PLAINTIFF, A HOMEOWNER WHOSE COMPANY HIRED DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR TO WORK AT PLAINTIFF’S HOME, WAS A PROPER PLAINTIFF UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS IN CONTROL OF THE WORK SITE AND HAD BEEN DELEGATED SITE SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES (SECOND DEPT).

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS ACTED AS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR, THEY DID NOT SUPERVISE OR CONTROL ANY OF THE WORK, HOMEOWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STAIRWAY WHICH COLLAPSED WAS TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT, ONLY TEMPORARY STAIRWAYS ARE COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PROJECT MANAGER HAD SUFFICIENT SUPERVISORY CONTROL TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 (FOURTH DEPT).

THE PLACEMENT OF THE LADDER WAS DEEMED THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND PLAINTIFF HAD PLACED THE LADDER, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS WERE DEEMED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY PRECLUDING RECOVERY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LADDERS WERE AVAILABLE, PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN AN INVERTED BUCKET HE WAS STANDING ON TIPPED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 OR COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).

KNEE INJURY CAUSED BY CARRYING A HEAVY STEEL BEAM DOWN STAIRS IS NOT A COVERED ACCIDENT UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).

QUESTIONS OF FACT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), LABOR LAW 241 (6), AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS USING THE TOP HALF OF AN EXTENSION LADDER AND THE LADDER SLIPPED OUT FROM UNDER HIM (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.