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

AFFIDAVIT FROM AN EYEWITNESS TO THE ACCIDENT SUBMITTED WITH THE REPLY PAPERS WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS IT DID NOT CONFLICT THE WITNESS’S OTHER AFFIDAVIT OR THE WITNESS’S PRIOR UNSWORN STATEMENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff alleged his thumb was crushed when attempting to lift a roof cutting machine over a parapet at the edge of the roof in order to drop the machine to insulation material ten feet below. Three affidavits from an eyewitness (Vera) were submitted, including an affidavit submitted with the reply. The defendant argued conflicts in the affidavits created a question of fact. But the court saw no conflicts:

The motion court properly accepted Veras’s second, clarifying affidavit in plaintiff’s submission on reply. The second affidavit merely amplified the factual recitation set forth in Veras’s initial affidavit, which had been procured and drafted by the defense and omitted the pertinent detail that the workers were actually in the process of lowering the machine from the roof, and not engaged in pushing it across the flat roof, when the accident occurred. Veras’s second affidavit was a proper response to defendant’s submission, and did not contradict the statement in his first affidavit …  Nor could Veras’s second affidavit be rejected as raising a feigned issue of fact … , especially since it comported with all of the other eyewitness testimony in the case, as well as with Veras’s own early unsworn statement, and explained the ambiguity arising from the omission of additional details in his first affidavit.

We have recognized the distinction in Labor Law § 240(1) cases between contradictory evidence and evidence that is subject to explanation in granting partial summary judgment on liability to a plaintiff… .

Here, Veras’s three statements, when taken together and along with those of the three other eyewitnesses and that of plaintiff, provided a detailed and consistent recounting of the accident as having occurred during the lowering of the machine. Cuevas v Baruti Constr. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05905, First Dept 8-23-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (AFFIDAVIT FROM AN EYEWITNESS TO THE ACCIDENT SUBMITTED WITH THE REPLY PAPERS WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS IT DID NOT CONFLICT THE WITNESS’S OTHER AFFIDAVIT OR THE WITNESS’S PRIOR UNSWORN STATEMENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, AFFIDAVIT FROM AN EYEWITNESS TO THE ACCIDENT SUBMITTED WITH THE REPLY PAPERS WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS IT DID NOT CONFLICT THE WITNESS’S OTHER AFFIDAVIT OR THE WITNESS’S PRIOR UNSWORN STATEMENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AFFIDAVIT FROM AN EYEWITNESS TO THE ACCIDENT SUBMITTED WITH THE REPLY PAPERS WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS IT DID NOT CONFLICT THE WITNESS’S OTHER AFFIDAVIT OR THE WITNESS’S PRIOR UNSWORN STATEMENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (REPLY, AFFIDAVIT FROM AN EYEWITNESS TO THE ACCIDENT SUBMITTED WITH THE REPLY PAPERS WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS IT DID NOT CONFLICT THE WITNESS’S OTHER AFFIDAVIT OR THE WITNESS’S PRIOR UNSWORN STATEMENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/REPLY (AFFIDAVIT FROM AN EYEWITNESS TO THE ACCIDENT SUBMITTED WITH THE REPLY PAPERS WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS IT DID NOT CONFLICT THE WITNESS’S OTHER AFFIDAVIT OR THE WITNESS’S PRIOR UNSWORN STATEMENT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

,

HOMEOWNER’S DAUGHTER, AS EXECUTRIX OF DECEDENT HOMEOWNER’S ESTATE, ENTITLED TO HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), BUT DECEDENT’S SON, WHO GAVE WORK INSTRUCTIONS TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION AND MAY BE LIABLE AS AN AGENT OF THE OWNER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined one of decedent homeowner's children, Nina, who was the executrix of decedent's estate, was entitled to dismissal of the Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action pursuant to the homeowner's exemption, but there was a question of fact whether decedent's son, Stephen, was liable as an agent of the owner. Plaintiff, who was hired to paint the interior of decedent's home, alleged Stephen instructed him to use a ladder to enter the house through a window. Plaintiff fell when the ladder slipped out from under him:

… [T]he defendants established the entitlement of Nina, as executrix of the decedent's estate, to the protection of the homeowner's exemption by submitting evidence that the decedent owned the one-family residence at which the work was being performed and that the decedent did not direct or control the work being done … . …

… Stephen did not own the subject residence and, therefore, was not entitled to the homeowner's exemption … . …

… [T]the defendants failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that liability for violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) could not be imposed upon Stephen as an agent of the owner. “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 . . . liability [under the Labor Law], 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” … . Here, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether Stephen had the authority to supervise and control the plaintiff's work. Stephen told the plaintiff which rooms to paint and, according to the plaintiff, directed him to use a ladder to access the house through a window. Diaz v Trevisani, 2018 NY Slip Op 05823, Second Dept 8-22-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (HOMEOWNER'S DAUGHTER, AS EXECUTRIX OF DECEDENT HOMEOWNER'S ESTATE, ENTITLED TO HOMEOWNER'S EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), BUT DECEDENT'S SON, WHO GAVE WORK INSTRUCTIONS TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE HOMEOWNER'S EXEMPTION AND MAY BE LIABLE AS AN AGENT OF THE OWNER (SECOND DEPT))/HOMEOWNER'S EXEMPTION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, HOMEOWNER'S DAUGHTER, AS EXECUTRIX OF DECEDENT HOMEOWNER'S ESTATE, ENTITLED TO HOMEOWNER'S EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), BUT DECEDENT'S SON, WHO GAVE WORK INSTRUCTIONS TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE HOMEOWNER'S EXEMPTION AND MAY BE LIABLE AS AN AGENT OF THE OWNER (SECOND DEPT))/TRUSTS AND ESTATES (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, HOMEOWNER'S DAUGHTER, AS EXECUTRIX OF DECEDENT HOMEOWNER'S ESTATE, ENTITLED TO HOMEOWNER'S EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), BUT DECEDENT'S SON, WHO GAVE WORK INSTRUCTIONS TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE HOMEOWNER'S EXEMPTION AND MAY BE LIABLE AS AN AGENT OF THE OWNER (SECOND DEPT))/AGENCY (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, HOMEOWNER'S DAUGHTER, AS EXECUTRIX OF DECEDENT HOMEOWNER'S ESTATE, ENTITLED TO HOMEOWNER'S EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), BUT DECEDENT'S SON, WHO GAVE WORK INSTRUCTIONS TO THE INJURED PLAINTIFF, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE HOMEOWNER'S EXEMPTION AND MAY BE LIABLE AS AN AGENT OF THE OWNER (SECOND DEPT))

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BACK OF A FLATBED TRUCK AS STEEL BEAMS WERE BEING HOISTED FROM THE TRUCK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action should have been granted. Plaintiff fell off a flatbed truck as steel beams were being hoisted from the truck:

Plaintiff established that the accident was proximately caused by defendants’ failure to provide safety devices necessary to ensure protection from the gravity-related risks posed by the work he was engaged in, in violation of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Here, plaintiff fell off a flatbed truck after a load of steel beams, without tag lines, was hoisted above him by a crane, and began to swing towards him … . The risk of the hoisted load of beams with no tag lines triggered the protections set forth in Labor Law § 240(1) … . Based on the same evidence, plaintiff also established his Labor Law § 241(6) claim insofar as the swinging beams lacked tag lines, a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-8.2(c)(3), which requires tag lines or certain other restraints to be used to avoid hazards posed by swinging loads hoisted by mobile cranes. Flores v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 05734, First Dept 8-9-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BACK OF A FLATBED TRUCK AS STEEL BEAMS WERE BEING HOISTED FROM THE TRUCK (FIRST DEPT))/FLATBED TRUCK (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BACK OF A FLATBED TRUCK AS STEEL BEAMS WERE BEING HOISTED FROM THE TRUCK (FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

VENTILATOR FROM WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL WAS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, HOWEVER THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT REACH THE VENTILATOR FROM THE LADDER ENTITLED HIM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) IS NOT A FINDING OF NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION UNDER THE LEASE TERMS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined (1) the ventilator on which plaintiff was crouching when it detached and he fell was not a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law 240 (1), (2) plaintiff’s testimony that he couldn’t reach the ventilator, which he was attempting to remove, from the A-frame ladder he was provided entitled him to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action, and (3) the landlord was entitled to summary judgment on the cross-claim for indemnification by the tenant, noting that the indemnification clause in the lease did not require that the tenant be negligent and that a Labor Law 240 (1) violation is not a finding that the tenant was negligent:

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, the ventilator he was standing on and disassembling when he fell was not a safety device; it was the object of the demolition project on which he was employed, and was not intended to protect him from elevation-related risks … . …

Despite Eight Oranges’ [tenant’s] argument to the contrary, this indemnification provision does not require a finding of negligence on the part of the tenant before it is triggered. Nor does it violate General Obligations Law § 5-321, “since a finding of liability under Labor Law § 240 is not the equivalent of a finding of negligence and does not give rise to an inference of negligence” … . It is clear from the contractual language at issue that the landlord … intended to be indemnified by the tenant, Eight Oranges, for any “damage or injury occurring or arising to any person” on the property, that is caused by the tenant. Hong-Bao Ren v Gioia St. Marks, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05520, First Dept 7-26-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (VENTILATOR FROM WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL WAS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, HOWEVER THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT REACH THE VENTILATOR FROM THE LADDER ENTITLED HIM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) IS NOT A FINDING OF NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION UNDER THE LEASE TERMS (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW VENTILATOR FROM WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL WAS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, HOWEVER THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT REACH THE VENTILATOR FROM THE LADDER ENTITLED HIM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) IS NOT A FINDING OF NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION UNDER THE LEASE TERMS (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW  (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW VENTILATOR FROM WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL WAS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, HOWEVER THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT REACH THE VENTILATOR FROM THE LADDER ENTITLED HIM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) IS NOT A FINDING OF NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION UNDER THE LEASE TERMS (FIRST DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW VENTILATOR FROM WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL WAS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, HOWEVER THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT REACH THE VENTILATOR FROM THE LADDER ENTITLED HIM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) IS NOT A FINDING OF NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION UNDER THE LEASE TERMS (FIRST DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW VENTILATOR FROM WHICH PLAINTIFF FELL WAS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, HOWEVER THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT REACH THE VENTILATOR FROM THE LADDER ENTITLED HIM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) IS NOT A FINDING OF NEGLIGENCE, LANDLORD ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION UNDER THE LEASE TERMS (FIRST DEPT))

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK OR IN A CONSTRUCTION AREA WHEN HE WAS INJURED, HE WAS BRINGING IN SUPPLIES WHICH WERE BEING STOCKPILED AND WERE NOT FOR IMMEDIATE USE, THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the owner of the building (Sussex) and plaintiff’s employer (Berkoff) were entitled to summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6) and 200 action. Plaintiff was injured when he fell bringing in boxes of tile and thin set using a hand truck. Plaintiff was not performing construction work within the mean of Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) because the material he was bringing in were not for immediate use. Both defendants established they did not supervise plaintiff’s work or have notice of any dangerous condition:

Sussex and Berkoff each established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) insofar as asserted against Sussex. The evidence supporting the motions established that at the time of the accident, the plaintiff was not engaged in construction work within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1), and was not working in a construction area within the meaning of Labor Law § 241(6), since the building materials were not being “readied for immediate use” … , but were instead being “stockpil[ed] for future use” … . …

Sussex and Berkoff each established, prima facie, both that Sussex did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the alleged condition which caused the plaintiff’s injury, and that it did not supervise or control the means and methods of the plaintiff’s work … . Kusayev v Sussex Apts. Assoc., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05458, Second Dept 7-25-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK OR IN A CONSTRUCTION AREA WHEN HE WAS INJURED, HE WAS BRINGING IN SUPPLIES WHICH WERE BEING STOCKPILED AND WERE NOT FOR IMMEDIATE USE, THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTRUCTION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK OR IN A CONSTRUCTION AREA WHEN HE WAS INJURED, HE WAS BRINGING IN SUPPLIES WHICH WERE BEING STOCKPILED AND WERE NOT FOR IMMEDIATE USE, THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED THE FAILURE OF A TOE BOARD WAS AT LEAST A CONTRIBUTING CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A ROOF, CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A BAR TO RECOVERY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff fell from a roof after a toe board became detached from the roof:

“Plaintiff[s] met [their] initial burden by establishing that [plaintiff’s] injury was proximately caused by the failure of a safety device to afford him proper protection from an elevation-related risk” … . “[T]he question of whether [a] device provided proper protection within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) is ordinarily a question of fact, except in those instances where the unrefuted evidence establishes that the device collapsed, slipped or otherwise failed to perform its [intended] function of supporting the worker and his or her materials” … . Here, plaintiffs established that, on the morning of the accident, plaintiff had been instructed to work on a pitched roof on which “toe boards,” i.e., two- by six-inch boards nailed directly to the roof approximately two to three feet up from the bottom edge of the roof, had already been installed, and defendants failed to submit non-speculative evidence to the contrary. There is no dispute that the toe boards detached from the roof while plaintiff was working, causing him to fall and sustain injuries. The failure of that safety device constituted a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) as a matter of law  …, and that violation was, at minimum, ” a contributing cause of [plaintiff’s] fall’ “… . Thus, contrary to defendants’ contentions, plaintiff’s alleged failure to utilize other safety devices available on the job site, including his alleged failure to reinstall the toe boards with additional supporting roof jacks, raises no more than an issue of contributory negligence … . Provens v Ben-Fall Dev., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05426, Fourth Dept 7-25-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED THE FAILURE OF A TOE BOARD WAS AT LEAST A CONTRIBUTING CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A ROOF, CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A BAR TO RECOVERY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))

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))

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))

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))

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))

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