You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law
, , ,

LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED CROSS CLAIMS BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED, PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAINTAIN A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION POLICY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, in a comprehensive decision, over a comprehensive dissent, determined that the general contractor, Ultimate, was not liable under Labor Law 200 for plaintiff’s fall through an opening in planks and plywood covering a stairwell opening because the accident was attributable to the manner of the work and Ultimate did not exercise any supervisory control over the installation of drywall by the plaintiff. The dissent argued that there was a question of fact whether the opening in the stairwell covering was a dangerous condition of which Ultimate had notice, which is also a ground for liability under Labor Law 200. The Second Department noted that the court should not have sua sponte dismissed Ultimate’s cross claims against the drywall company (Fortin) because such relief was not requested. The Second Department further noted that Fortin was not entitled to protection from plaintiff’s suit under the Workers’ Compensation Law on the ground that plaintiff was Fortin’s employee because Fortin did not maintain a Workers’ Compensation policy:

“Labor Law § 200(1) is a codification of the common-law duty of an owner or general contractor to provide workers with a safe place to work”… . “Cases involving Labor Law § 200 fall into two broad categories: namely, those where workers are injured as a result of dangerous or defective premises conditions at a work site, and those involving the manner in which the work is performed” … . Where “a claim arises out of alleged defects or dangers arising from a subcontractor’s methods or materials, recovery against the owner or general contractor cannot be had unless it is shown that the party to be charged exercised some supervisory control over the operation” … . “A defendant has the authority to supervise or control the work for purposes of Labor Law § 200 when that defendant bears the responsibility for the manner in which the work is performed” … . “[M]ere general supervisory authority at a work site for the purpose of overseeing the progress of the work and inspecting the work product is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200” … . …

… Ultimate established, … that the accident arose from the method and manner in which the plaintiff and Jean-Guy Fortin covered the stairwell opening … . …

The Supreme Court should not have, in effect, sua sponte, directed dismissal of Ultimate’s cross claims against Fortin for common-law indemnification and contribution, which relief Fortin did not request in its motion papers… . Moreover, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of Ultimate’s motion which was for summary judgment on its cross claim against Fortin for common-law indemnification. Contrary to Fortin’s contention, Ultimate’s cross claims are not barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. … Ultimate established that Fortin did not procure workers’ compensation on behalf of the plaintiff … . Therefore, Fortin is not entitled to the benefit of the workers’ compensation bar. Poulin v Ultimate Homes, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07468, Second Dept 11-7-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED CROSS CLAIMS BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED, PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAINTAIN A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION POLICY (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUA SPONTE, LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED CROSS CLAIMS BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED, PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAINTAIN A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION POLICY (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGES (SUA SPONTE, LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED CROSS CLAIMS BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED, PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAINTAIN A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION POLICY (SECOND DEPT))/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED CROSS CLAIMS BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED, PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAINTAIN A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION POLICY (SECOND DEPT)

PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION DESPITE FALLING FROM AN UNSAFE MAKESHIFT PLATFORM MADE BY THE PLAINTIFF (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in his Labor Law 240 (1) action result from a fall from an unsafe makeshift platform made by the plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged the lift with which he was provided could not be used and no other safety equipment was provided:

Defendant is a property owner subject to the statute and he provided no equipment to plaintiff aside from agreeing to rent a lift for plaintiff’s use. Plaintiff, at the time of his injury, was installing siding above a staircase running along the side of the building. He averred that the lift would not fit in the area, he was not provided with a traditional scaffold and he could not have used a “ladder jack” scaffold in the area due to both the equipment being in use elsewhere and the location of the staircase. Plaintiff accordingly fashioned a work platform from his A-frame ladder and a scaffolding plank known as a pick, running the pick between a rung of the ladder and the top landing of the staircase. The pick and ladder were not anchored to the ground or the wall, and plaintiff gave deposition testimony stating that he fell several feet when the contraption slid out from beneath him as he was pushing the new siding into place. An engineer retained by plaintiff opined that the unsecured makeshift platform was unsafe and that defendant violated Labor Law § 240 (1) by failing to furnish adequate safety equipment, such as a proper scaffold and a safety harness, that would have shielded plaintiff from injury. The foregoing was sufficient to “establish[] a prima facie showing of a statutory violation which was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries, [shifting the burden] to defendant to submit evidentiary facts which would raise a factual issue on liability” … . …

Defendant responded by arguing that inconsistencies in plaintiff’s account over time raised a material question of fact as to how the accident occurred. * * * [The] variations did not suggest “that plaintiff’s fall and injuries were caused by anything other than the unsecured [pick and] ladder or that plaintiff’s own conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident[.]” Cooper v Delliveneri, 2018 NY Slip Op 07396, Third Dept 11-1-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION DESPITE FALLING FROM AN UNSAFE MAKESHIFT PLATFORM MADE BY THE PLAINTIFF (THIRD DEPT))

STACKED SHEETROCK DID NOT PRESENT AN ELEVATION RELATED HAZARD AND DID NOT BLOCK A PASSAGEWAY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE STACKING OF THE SHEETROCK, LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6), 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the Labor Law 240 (1), 246 )1) and 200 causes of action were properly dismissed. The sheetrock which allegedly fell and struck plaintiff’s ankle was not an elevation-related hazard, did not block a passageway, and the defendants had not unloaded or stacked the sheetrock and did not exercise sufficient supervisory control to be liable in negligence:

The mere fact that a plaintiff was struck by an object that fell does not, by itself, give rise to liability under the statute … . Rather, a plaintiff must establish that “the object fell, while being hoisted or secured, because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute” … . That said, “where a plaintiff was exposed to the usual and ordinary dangers of a construction site, and not the extraordinary elevation risks envisioned by Labor Law § 240 (1), the plaintiff cannot recover under the statute” … . …

The record indicates … that the sheetrock was stacked on its long side on the ground before it fell and that plaintiff was on the same level as the sheetrock. …

Regarding plaintiff’s cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6), it was incumbent upon plaintiff to show that defendants violated an Industrial Code provision that imposed a specific standard of conduct … . Plaintiff failed in that regard. The record discloses that the sheetrock was stored in the corner of a second-floor room and did not “obstruct any passageway, walkway, stairway or other thoroughfare” … .

Turning to plaintiff’s remaining claims, “Labor Law § 200 codifies the common-law duty imposed upon . . . general contractors to maintain a safe work site” … . Where the injury stemmed from the methods and means in which a subcontractor performed its work, “there must be a showing of supervisory control and actual or constructive notice of the unsafe manner of performance” … . “Where a subcontractor creates a condition on the premises that results in an unreasonable risk of harm and that condition is a proximate cause of a worker’s injuries, then common-law negligence may be implicated” … . Wiley v Marjam Supply Co., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07381, Third Dept 11-1-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (STACKED SHEETROCK DID NOT PRESENT AN ELEVATION RELATED HAZARD AND DID NOT BLOCK A PASSAGEWAY, DEFENDANTS DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE STACKING OF THE SHEETROCK, LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6), 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))

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))

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