You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s (Pumpcrete’s) motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action should have been granted, but a question of fact precluded summary judgment in favor of Pumpcrete on the common law negligence cause of action:

Plaintiff was injured while guiding a concrete pump hose that was attached to a truck owned and operated by defendant Pumpcrete Corporation (Pumpcrete). An obstruction formed in the pump hose, causing wet concrete to suddenly be ejected from the hose and knocking plaintiff off of the scaffolding upon which he was standing. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was working for the general contractor, which had hired Pumpcrete to supply the concrete pumping equipment. …

With respect to the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action … , we note that, “while under that statute owners and general contractors are generally absolutely liable for statutory violations . . . , other parties may be liable under th[at] statute[ ] only if they are acting as the agents of the owner or general contractor by virtue of the fact that they had been given the authority to supervise and control the work being performed at the time of the injury” … . Pumpcrete satisfied its initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that it was not an agent of the owner or general contractor by submitting deposition testimony from plaintiff and the Pumpcrete pump operator that Pumpcrete lacked authority to supervise or control plaintiff’s work, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in response … . Rohr v Dewald, 2018 NY Slip Op 04160, Fourth Dept 6-8-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR (FOURTH DEPT))

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SAFETY DEVICES FOR LIFTING HEAVY MOTOR WERE AVAILABLE, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact whether safety devices were available precluded granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff was injured lifting a heavy motor onto a scissor lift. Defendant’s foreman testified he had never manually lifted a motor onto a scissors lift and safety devices for lifting the motor must have been available:

In support of the motion, plaintiffs submitted the deposition testimony of plaintiff set forth above, as well as that of his coworker and a foreman. Plaintiff’s coworker testified that he had performed work on 30 or 40 such doors and had manually lifted the motor onto a scissor lift every time. Conversely, the foreman, who was not on location on the date of the injury, testified that he had performed work on “over a thousand” such doors and had “never lifted a motor manually onto a scissor lift.” The foreman found it “hard to believe” that hoists, blocks, pulleys, ropes, or other safety devices were not available on site.

We conclude that plaintiffs failed to meet their initial burden on their motion inasmuch as their evidentiary submissions created issues of fact whether plaintiff’s “injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential” … . Smiley v Allgaier Constr. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 04130, Fourth Dept 6-8-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SAFETY DEVICES FOR LIFTING HEAVY MOTOR WERE AVAILABLE, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

TWO TO THREE FOOT FALL OF HEAVY STEEL PLATE WHICH WAS BEING HOISTED IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL NOT DE MINIMUS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the two to three foot fall of a heavy steel plate that was being hoisted was covered by Labor Law 240 (1):

Plaintiff was injured when the nylon sling attaching a one-to-two ton steel plate to an excavator snapped, causing the heavy plate to fall to the ground, bounce, and sever the pole of a nearby street sign. The impact caused the sign to be propelled toward plaintiff, hitting his right forearm and causing him serious personal injuries. …

… [T]he photographs taken immediately before the accident show that the steel plate was about two or three feet above the ground. This elevation differential cannot be viewed as de minimis, given the weight of the steel plate and the amount of force it generated over the course of its relatively short descent … . Makkieh v Judlau Contr. Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04112, First Dept 6-7-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (TWO TO THREE FOOT FALL OF HEAVY STEEL PLATE WHICH WAS BEING HOISTED IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL NOT DE MINIMUS (FIRST DEPT))

INJURY FROM SIX INCH FALL OF 500 POUND BEAM COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1), POWER TO STOP WORK FOR SAFETY REASONS INSUFFICIENT BASIS FOR LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action and the construction manager (Structure Tone), although it had the power to stop work for safety reasons, was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 cause of action:

Plaintiff was injured … when he and three other workers were attempting to load a 500-pound steel I-beam into an internal freight elevator at a construction site in order to transport it from the 18th floor to the ground floor. The elevator was four feet wide and five feet deep, with an eight foot ceiling, while the beam was 12 feet long. The workers opened a hatch on top of the elevator, and were attempting to stand the beam on its end, with the high end extending through the open hatch, when the beam fell down half a foot onto plaintiff’s shoulder. …

Plaintiff submitted evidence showing that he was engaged in an activity covered by the statute, that defendants failed to provide an adequate safety device to protect him, and that such violation was a proximate cause of the accident … . The half foot that the steel I-beam dropped onto plaintiff’s shoulder is not de minimis, given the I-beam’s weight and since the hazard was one directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to a person … . * * *

Although Structure Tone had the authority to stop work at the construction site for safety reasons, this is “insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to whether [Structure Tone] exercised the requisite degree of supervision and control over the work being performed to sustain a claim under Labor Law § 200 or for common-law negligence” … . Villanueva v 114 Fifth Ave. Assoc. LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03928, First Dept 6-5-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (INJURY FROM SIX INCH FALL OF 500 POUND BEAM COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1), POWER TO STOP WORK FOR SAFETY REASONS INSUFFICIENT BASIS FOR LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (FIRST DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, UNTIMELY CROSS MOTION CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY TO THE EXTENT THE ISSUES RAISED ARE THE SAME AS THE ISSUES RAISED IN PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff was standing on a scaffold when a masonry stone fell on the scaffold and the planks collapsed. The court noted that defendants’ untimely cross motion for summary judgment was properly considered only to the extent the issues were identical to the issues raised in plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment:

This Court may consider the merits of defendants’ untimely cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint to the extent it sought dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, because it is based on the same issues raised in plaintiff’s motion … However, the remainder of the motion, seeking dismissal of Labor Law § 241(6), Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence claims cannot be considered because it does not address issues nearly identical to those raised in the timely motion and defendants did not demonstrate good cause for the delay … .

Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim. He established, prima facie, that he was engaged in an activity falling within the statute, and that defendants failed to provide him proper safety equipment, either in the form of a scaffold that could withstand the force of a falling masonry stone … , or any other appropriate safety device. Plaintiff further demonstrated that defendants’ failure to provide an appropriate safety device was the proximate cause of the accident, and defendants have failed to raise an issue of fact. Jarama v 902 Liberty Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03897, First Dept 5-31-18

​LABOR LAW -CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, UNTIMELY CROSS MOTION CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY TO THE EXTENT THE ISSUES RAISED ARE THE SAME AS THE ISSUES RAISED IN PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, UNTIMELY CROSS MOTION CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY TO THE EXTENT THE ISSUES RAISED ARE THE SAME AS THE ISSUES RAISED IN PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT ( UNTIMELY CROSS MOTION CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY TO THE EXTENT THE ISSUES RAISED ARE THE SAME AS THE ISSUES RAISED IN PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT))

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH AN OPENING COVERED BY A PIECE OF PARTICLE BOARD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff fell through an opening covered by a piece of particle board:

​

There is no issue of fact as to whether it was foreseeable that the particle board covering an escape hatch on top of the elevator car where plaintiff was required to work would collapse when traversed by him … . It is not dispositive that the escape hatch covering was not intended to serve as a safety device protecting workers from elevation-related risks. Rather, since plaintiff’s work exposed him to such risks, he was required to be provided with adequate safety devices in compliance with Labor Law § 240(1) … . Giancola v Yale Club of N.Y. City, 2018 NY Slip Op 03901, First Dept 5-31-18

​

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH AN OPENING COVERED BY A PIECE OF PARTICLE BOARD (FIRST DEPT))

​

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WHICH COULD STOP WORK FOR UNSAFE PRACTICES WAS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER OR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER FOR PURPOSES OF LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, affirmed the denial of summary judgment to plaintiff on his Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action. The court discussed the concept of a “statutory agent” of an owner or general contractor:

​Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) impose absolute liability on “contractors and owners and their agents” for worker injuries on construction sites… . CRSG, as site safety consultant, was neither an owner nor general contractor on the project. Thus, whether CRSG is subject to the Labor Law is dependent on whether it was an “agent” of the owners or [construction manager] at the site.

To hold a defendant liable under the Labor Law as a “statutory agent” of either the owner or the general contractor, it must be shown that the defendant had the ” authority to supervise and control'” the injury-producing work … . The determinative factor is whether the defendant had the right to exercise control over the work, not whether it actually exercised that right … . Where the owner or general contractor delegates to a third party the duty to conform to the requirements of the Labor Law, that third party becomes the statutory agent … .

The authority of DeSimone, as an employee of CRSG, to stop work in the event of unsafe practices raises an issue of fact as to whether CRSG is a “statutory agent” for purposes of the Labor Law … . Santos v Condo 124 LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03799, First Dept 5-29-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WHICH COULD STOP WORK FOR UNSAFE PRACTICES WAS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER OR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER FOR PURPOSES OF LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) (FIRST DEPT))/STATUTORY AGENT (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WHICH COULD STOP WORK FOR UNSAFE PRACTICES WAS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER OR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER FOR PURPOSES OF LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) (FIRST DEPT))

ARBITRATOR’S RULING WAS IRRATIONAL AND VIOLATED CPLR 1209 IN THIS NO-FAULT INSURANCE ACTION, HEALTH CARE PROVIDER, AS AN ASSIGNEE, WAS ENTITLED TO ARBITRATE ITS CLAIM FOR CARE PROVIDED TO THE INJURED INFANT (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been dismissed. Plaintiff, while carrying a heavy pipe on a ramp, lost his balance and was struck by the pipe:

Plaintiff’s testimony established that he was not exposed to the type of elevation-related hazard contemplated by the statute. The height differential of 6 to 10 inches mediated by the ramp did not constitute a physically significant elevation differential covered by the statute … . Also, as the ramp was serving as a passageway, as opposed to the “functional equivalent” of a safety device enumerated under the statute, it did not fall within the purview of the statute … . Further, the impetus for the pipe’s descent was plaintiff’s loss of balance, rather than the direct consequence of the force of gravity … . Jackson v Hunter Roberts Constr. Group, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03805, First Dept 5-29-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF LOST HIS BALANCE CARRYING A PIPE ON A RAMP, INCIDENT NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT))

ACCIDENT DID NOT INVOLVE AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTORS DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OF THE PLAINTIFF, THE AREA OR THE WORK, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been dismissed because the accident, tripping over a pile of sand on ground level, did not involve an elevation-related risk. The Labor Law 241 (6) and 200 causes of  action should have been dismissed because the defendants (subcontractors USRC and A-Deck) did not exercise control over the plaintiff, the area or the work:

… [T]he Labor Law § 241(6) claim should be dismissed because neither USRC nor A-Deck may be held liable under that statute. “Labor Law § 241(6) does not automatically apply to all subcontractors on a site or in the chain of command'” … . “Rather, for liability under the statute to attach to a defendant, a plaintiff must show that the defendant exercised control either over the plaintiff, the specific work area involved or the work that gave rise to the injury” … . Here, there is no evidence that either USRC or A-Deck exercised any control over the plaintiff, the specific work area involved or the work that gave rise to plaintiff’s injury.

The Labor Law § 200 claim should also be dismissed as neither USRC nor A-Deck may be held liable under that statute. “Section 200 of the Labor Law merely codified the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or general contractor to provide construction site workmen with a safe place to work” … . “An implicit precondition to this duty to provide a safe place to work is that the party charged with that responsibility have the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury to enable it to avoid or correct an unsafe condition”  … . Here, there is no evidence that either USRC or A-Deck had the authority to control the activity that brought about plaintiff’s injury. Adagio v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03744,  First Dept 5-24-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (ACCIDENT DID NOT INVOLVE AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTORS DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OF THE PLAINTIFF, THE AREA OR THE WORK, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/SUBCONTRACTORS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ACCIDENT DID NOT INVOLVE AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTORS DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OF THE PLAINTIFF, THE AREA OR THE WORK, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

FALL THOUGH AN UNGUARDED FLOOR OPENING AT A CONSTRUCTION SITE IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ABLE TO TIE OFF HIS HARNESS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, noted that, although the fall through an unguarded floor opening at a construction site was covered under Labor Law 240 (1), there was a question of fact whether plaintiff was able to tie off his harness. Therefore, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment shouldn’t have been granted:

“[A] fall through an unguarded opening in the floor of a construction site constitutes a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) only where a safety device adequate to prevent such a fall was not provided. A safety line and harness may be an adequate safety device for a person working over an open area or near an elevated edge” … . Here, the record demonstrates that although plaintiff was wearing a harness and lanyard at the time of the accident, triable issues exist as to whether static lines were in place for him to safely tie off. Maman v Marx Realty & Improvement Co., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 03614, First Dept 5-17-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FALL THOUGH AN UNGUARDED FLOOR OPENING AT A CONSTRUCTION SITE IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ABLE TO TIE OFF HIS HARNESS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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