You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A LOADING DOCK WHILE WAITING TO SIGN IN TO WORK IN A BUILDING, HIS INJURY OCCURRED AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND WHILE HE WAS ENGAGED IN WORK INVOLVING A GRAVITY-RELATED RISK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly denied. Plaintiff fell off a loading platform while waiting to sign in to work painting upper floors of a building. The dissent argued that plaintiff was not at the construction site, within the meaning of the statute, at the time of the injury:

​

Rather than isolating the moment of a plaintiff’s injury, the general context of the work is what should be taken into account … . Clearly, at the time of the accident, plaintiff was entering the building and reporting to the construction site through the only means of access the owner made available to him and all other construction workers. Arguments that plaintiff’s injury did not occur at a “construction site,” under the circumstance of this case, places an unintended limitation on Labor Law § 240(1).

While at the precise moment of plaintiff’s injury he was awaiting clearance to enter the building and he slipped or fell off a permanent structure, there is no merit to [defendant’s] further contention that plaintiff was not actually engaged in work involving a gravity-related risk … . We have held that injuries sustained while a worker was on site, although entering or exiting the site, or on a break, come within the protections of Labor Law § 240(1) … . It is, therefore, of no moment the elevated loading dock is a permanent fixture that existed before the project began … . Hoyos v NY-1095 Ave. of the Ams., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08717, First Dept 12-14-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A LOADING DOCK WHILE WAITING TO SIGN IN TO WORK IN A BUILDING, HIS INJURY OCCURRED AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND WHILE HE WAS ENGAGED IN WORK INVOLVING A GRAVITY-RELATED RISK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT))/CONSTRUCTION SITE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A LOADING DOCK WHILE WAITING TO SIGN IN TO WORK IN A BUILDING, HIS INJURY OCCURRED AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND WHILE HE WAS ENGAGED IN WORK INVOLVING A GRAVITY-RELATED RISK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT))GRAVITY-RELATED RISK (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A LOADING DOCK WHILE WAITING TO SIGN IN TO WORK IN A BUILDING, HIS INJURY OCCURRED AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND WHILE HE WAS ENGAGED IN WORK INVOLVING A GRAVITY-RELATED RISK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT))

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, HEAVY ROLL OF WIRE FELL BECAUSE OF ABSENCE OF A SAFETY DEVICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff was injured when a heavy roll of wire fell as it was being moved up a ramp made of planks in a loading area:

​

Plaintiff established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability where he was injured during the course of his employment when a reel of electrical wire weighing 500 to 1,000 pounds fell and struck his foot. Workers were rolling the reel up two wooden planks for loading onto a van when it fell, and although there are questions as to whether plaintiff was actually involved in moving the reel, plaintiff demonstrated that he sustained injuries from the falling reel due to absence of an adequate safety device… .

Defendants and third-party defendants (collectively defendants) fail to raise a triable issue of fact. They contend that issues exist as to whether a forklift was available onsite, and whether plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker for failing to use it despite being aware of it… . However, even if a forklift was available and plaintiff was aware of it, defendants have not offered evidence showing that he was actually instructed to use it… . Rather, it is undisputed that plaintiff’s foreman had instructed the workers to move the reel as they did, and to the extent defendants rely on the testimony of plaintiff’s employer that plaintiff was not to blindly follow the foreman’s instructions, such overlooks the realities of construction work … .

Nor is there a triable issue as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident. Even assuming that plaintiff did assist in moving the reel and in the course of doing so, removed his hand from the reel, such was not the sole proximate cause of the accident, as he was not provided with an adequate safety device to hoist the reel in the first instance … .

The contention that Labor Law § 240(1) is inapplicable because the loading of the reel did not fall within the scope of construction work, is unavailing. Although it was not actual construction work, and occurred in the loading area of the construction site, it was still part of the construction project … . Gutierrez v 451 Lexington Realty LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08475, First Dept 12-5-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, HEAVY ROLL OF WIRE FELL BECAUSE OF ABSENCE OF A SAFETY DEVICE (FIRST DEPT))

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BRICKS WHICH STRUCK PLAINTIFF WERE DELIBERATELY DROPPED, WHICH WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined a question of fact precluded summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff was struck by falling bricks outside a building. If the bricks fell accidentally, Labor Law 240 (1) would cover the injury, if the bricks were deliberately dropped, Labor Law 240 (1) would not cover the injury. In addition, the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action was deemed properly dismissed because the incident occurred outside the building:

​

Plaintiff was allegedly struck by falling bricks while working near one of four connected buildings on a construction site. The motion court correctly denied both plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim and defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing that claim, as there are issues of fact about whether the bricks fell accidently or were deliberately dropped by demolition workers. If the latter, then the bricks did not constitute falling objects pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) … . …

​

The motion court correctly dismissed the Labor Law § 241(6) claim predicated on an alleged violation of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-3.3(g), based on plaintiff’s testimony that his accident occurred outside rather than “within [a] building” (12 NYCRR 23-3.3[g]). Torres v Love Lane Mews, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08467, First Dept 12-5-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BRICKS WHICH STRUCK PLAINTIFF WERE DELIBERATELY DROPPED, WHICH WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT))/FALLING OBJECTS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BRICKS WHICH STRUCK PLAINTIFF WERE DELIBERATELY DROPPED, WHICH WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT))

AMONG SEVERAL LABOR LAW, NEGLIGENCE AND INSURANCE ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION, THE 2ND DEPT DETERMINED SUPREME COURT APPLIED THE WRONG STANDARD IN ITS LABOR LAW 200 ANALYSIS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department affirmed and reversed several rulings on defendants’ motions for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6), 200, and common law negligence action. Plaintiff was injured when he slipped on a loose piece of sprinkler pipe on property owned by defendant One City. The 2nd Department determined the correct standard for analyzing the Labor 200 cause of action was under the dangerous condition prong, rather than the manner of work prong, of Labor Law 200 and dismissed that cause of action. There was no proof One City created or knew about the dangerous condition. The Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action properly survived summary judgment because there was a question of fact whether the fall occurred in a passageway that should be kept clear and there was a question fact whether plaintiff was cleaning up the area at the time (which would preclude suit). The 2nd Department further found that there was a question of fact whether another defendant had purchased insurance as required by a contract with One City. The court also addressed indemnification issues. With regard to the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action, the court wrote:

​

Section 200 of the Labor Law is a codification of the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or general contractor to provide construction site workers with a safe place to work … . “Claims for personal injury under the statute and the common law fall into two broad categories: those arising from an alleged defect or dangerous condition existing on the premises and those arising from the manner in which the work was performed” … .”Where the injury was caused by the manner and means of the work, including the equipment used, the owner or general contractor is liable if it actually exercised supervisory control over the injury-producing work” … . “Where an existing defect or dangerous condition caused the injury, liability attaches if the owner or general contractor created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it” … .

Here, the court finds that the appropriate standard to apply in this case is the dangerous condition standard and not the manner and means standard. The cause of the accident, the piece of loose pipe, was not a condition created by the manner in which the work was performed by plaintiff or his employer but was rather a condition that already existed prior to plaintiff’s arrival on the fifth floor that day.  Prevost v One City Block LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08303, First Dept 11-28-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (AMONG SEVERAL LABOR LAW, NEGLIGENCE AND INSURANCE ISSUES ADDRESSED IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION, THE 2ND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED SUPREME COURT APPLIED THE WRONG STANDARD IN ITS LABOR LAW 200 ANALYSIS (FIRST DEPT))

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action (as well as a Labor law 241 (6) cause of action). Plaintiff was struck when a bundle of rebar that was being hoisted fell. Plaintiff’s actions in placing chokers on the rebar to allow the rebar to be hoisted were not the sole proximate cause of the accident. Others were involved in preparing the rebar for hoisting:

​

To recover under section 240 (1) for injuries sustained in a falling object case, a plaintiff must establish “both (1) that the object was being hoisted or secured, or that it required securing for the purposes of the undertaking, and (2) that the object fell because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device to guard against a risk involving the application of the force of gravity over a physically significant elevation differential” … . Here, we conclude that plaintiff established those factors and therefore met his burden on his motion. We note, in particular, that the deposition testimony and two witness affidavits tendered by plaintiff established “that any safety devices in fact used[, i.e., the chokers] failed in [their] core objective of preventing the [rebar] from falling,’ ” and that such failure was a proximate cause of the accident… . In opposition, defendants failed to raise a material issue of fact inasmuch as the opinions of their expert were conclusory … .

Contrary to defendants’ further contention, plaintiff’s actions were not the sole proximate cause of his injuries. “[W]here a plaintiff’s own actions are the sole proximate cause of the accident, there can be no liability” … . To establish their “sole proximate cause” theory, defendants were required to present “some evidence that the device furnished was adequate and properly placed and that the conduct of the plaintiff [was] the sole proximate cause of his . . . injuries” … . Here, the record establishes that plaintiff was not alone in rigging the rebar bundle and transporting it to a different area of the construction site, and thus plaintiff’s conduct could not be the sole proximate cause of his injuries. We therefore conclude that plaintiff’s action in participating in the rigging process raises, at most, an issue concerning his comparative negligence, which is not an available defense under Labor Law § 240 (1) … . Flowers v Harborcenter Dev., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08117, Fourth Dept 11-17-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT))/SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

COMPLEX DECISION EXPLAINING BLACK LETTER LAW ON LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION, CONTRACTUAL AND IMPLIED INDEMNIFICATION, AND INSURANCE COVERAGE ISSUES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department reversed Supreme Court in a complex action involving Labor Law 240(1), 241(6), 200 and common law negligence causes of action, as well as several contractual and implied indemnification issues, and insurance coverage and duty to defend and indemnify issues. The decision lays out the black letter law on all the issues, illustrates how the appellate courts analyze summary judgment motions, and is well worth reading for an overview of the complexity of a construction accident case involving property owners, several insurance policies, and layers of contractors. Plaintiff fell off a ladder that had been placed on an uneven floor. There are too many substantive issues to fairly summarize them here. With respect to the Labor Law issues, the court wrote:

​

The plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of the defendants’ liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. … The plaintiff used the last available ladder in his work area. According to the plaintiff, this ladder was missing two of its rubber feet, and was missing the lowest rung. The plaintiff testified that the floor was “not finished” and that it was partially covered in concrete and partially covered in rubble. The plaintiff indicated that there were “all types of things” strewn on the ground and that the floor “was not level.” The plaintiff stated that, as he was standing on the ladder to perform his work, the ladder “shook,” and he “lost [his] balance” and fell.

​

The … defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action insofar as it was based on Industrial Code … . Contrary to their contention, the …defendants did not make a prima facie showing that the plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . …

​

“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” … . “These two categories should be viewed in the disjunctive” … . Where, as here, “an accident is alleged to involve both a dangerous condition on the premises and the means and methods’ of the work, a defendant moving for summary judgment with respect to causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 is obligated to address the proof applicable to both liability standards” … .

Here, in moving for summary judgment, the defendants failed to address the allegation in the complaint that the plaintiff was injured due to the dangerous or defective premises conditions at the work site. Furthermore, contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, the plaintiff was not ultimately required to demonstrate that the Mall defendants actually exercised supervisory control.

“[W]hen the manner and method of work is at issue in a Labor Law § 200 analysis” the issue is “whether the defendant had the authority to supervise or control the work” … . “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” … .

Here, the defendants failed to establish that they did not have the authority to supervise or control the means and methods of the work performed by the plaintiff. Poalacin v Mall Props., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 08027, Second Dept 11-15-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (COMPLEX DECISION EXPLAINING BLACK LETTER LAW ON LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION, CONTRACTUAL AND IMPLIED INDEMNIFICATION, AND INSURANCE COVERAGE ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, COMPLEX DECISION EXPLAINING BLACK LETTER LAW ON LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION, CONTRACTUAL AND IMPLIED INDEMNIFICATION, AND INSURANCE COVERAGE ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, COMPLEX DECISION EXPLAINING BLACK LETTER LAW ON LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION, CONTRACTUAL AND IMPLIED INDEMNIFICATION, AND INSURANCE COVERAGE ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, COMPLEX DECISION EXPLAINING BLACK LETTER LAW ON LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION, CONTRACTUAL AND IMPLIED INDEMNIFICATION, AND INSURANCE COVERAGE ISSUES (SECOND DEPT))

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF WAS ATTEMPTING TO PUSH A HEAVY DOLLY UP A RAMP WHEN IT ROLLED BACK AND INJURED HIM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing in part Supreme Court, determined defendants were not entitled to  summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff was attempting to push a dolly carrying sheet rock weighing 1000 pounds up a ramp when the dolly rolled back, injuring him. The Second Department also held that the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action were properly granted because defendants did not have supervisory control over the manner of plaintiff’s work:

​

Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, the elevation differential between the worker and the loaded dolly while on a four-to-five-foot-high ramp “cannot be viewed as de minimis, particularly given the weight of the object and the amount of force it was capable of generating” … . Indeed, in opposition to the defendants’ original motion, the plaintiff’s expert averred that the 16 pieces of sheetrock loaded onto the dolly weighed more than 1000 pounds. Here, given the amount of force generated by the dolly rolling uncontrollably down the temporary ramp, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that Labor Law § 240(1) is not applicable on the ground that the injury did not result from a gravity-related or elevation-related hazard … . Kandatyan v 400 Fifth Realty, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 07984, Second Dept 11-15-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF WAS ATTEMPTING TO PUSH A HEAVY DOLLY UP A RAMP WHEN IT ROLLED BACK AND INJURED HIM (SECOND DEPT))

INJURY WHILE LIFTING A HEAVY OBJECT FROM A HORIZONTAL TO A VERTICAL POSITION NOT ENCOMPASSED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) action should have been granted. Plaintiff was injured when a heavy objected being lifted from a horizontal to a vertical position shifted momentarily. The Fourth Department found that the activity during which plaintiff was injured did not involve a risk covered by Labor Law 240 (1):

​

“Liability may . . . be imposed under [Labor Law § 240 (1)] only where the plaintiff’s injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential’ ” … . “Consequently, the protections of [the statute] do not encompass any and all perils that may be connected in some tangential way with the effects of gravity’ ” … . Rather, the statute “was designed to prevent those types of accidents in which the scaffold, hoist, stay, ladder or other protective device proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person” … .

Here, the harm to plaintiff was not “the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential” … ; rather, the submissions establish that plaintiff was injured while lifting the heavy switchgear segment when the weight thereof momentarily shifted to his side as a result of instability or a slight downward movement of half an inch on the coworker’s side … . Although plaintiff’s back injury “was tangentially related to the effects of gravity upon the [switchgear segment that] he was lifting, it was not caused by the limited type of elevation-related hazards encompassed by Labor Law § 240 (1)” … . We thus conclude that defendants established as a matter of law that plaintiff’s injuries resulted from a “routine workplace risk[]” of a construction site and not a “pronounced risk[] arising from construction work site elevation differentials” … . Horton v Board of Educ. of Campbell-Savona Cent. Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 07806, Fourth Dept 11-9-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (INJURY WHILE LIFTING A HEAVY OBJECT FROM A HORIZONTAL TO A VERTICAL POSITION NOT ENCOMPASSED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FOURTH DEPT)

PRIME CONTRACTOR DID NOT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DID NOT SUPERVISE PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND DID NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THE WORKSITE, ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor law 241 (6), 200 and common law negligence action should have been granted. Plaintiff was struck by a car while working in the median of a highway. Defendant, Oakgrove, was a prime contractor with whom the injured plaintiff’s employer did not contract. And Oakgrove had no supervisory control over the plaintiff or the worksite:

​

“The owner or general contractor is not synonymous with the prime contractor . . . Generally speaking, the prime contractor for general construction (especially in State construction projects) has no authority over the other prime contractors . . . unless the prime contractor is delegated work in such a manner that it stands in the shoes of the owner or general contractor with the authority to supervise and control the work” … .

Here, Oakgrove and Foit-Albert were both prime contractors, and plaintiff’s employer contracted only with Foit-Albert. Oakgrove did not supervise or instruct plaintiff. Rather, plaintiff reported to a supervisor at Foit-Albert. Oakgrove established as a matter of law that it had no control over plaintiff or the work he was performing, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . …

​

… Oakgrove … established that it did not have control over the work site at the time of plaintiff’s accident …. Thus, the court should have dismissed the Labor Law § 200 claim and common-law negligence cause of action … . Knab v Robertson, 2017 NY Slip Op 07822, Fourth Department 11-9-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PRIME CONTRACTOR DID NOT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DID NOT SUPERVISE PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND DID NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THE WORKSITE, ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/PRIME CONTRACTOR (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PRIME CONTRACTOR DID NOT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DID NOT SUPERVISE PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND DID NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THE WORKSITE, ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PRIME CONTRACTOR DID NOT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DID NOT SUPERVISE PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND DID NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THE WORKSITE, ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))

, ,

BECAUSE THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A BEAM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, IN ADDITION TO EVIDENCE HE TRIPPED OVER DEBRIS, THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BEAM, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s (Duran’s) motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the verdict in the interest of justice and for a new trial on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) should have been granted. Plaintiff alleged he fell from a beam which was four feet above the ground. There was evidence plaintiff previously alleged in a document that he fell over debris, but there was a question whether plaintiff, who spoke Spanish, understood the statement in the document. Plaintiff’s counsel asked that the jury be instructed to decide whether plaintiff fell off the beam, but the trial judge refused that request:

​

… Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiffs’ request to ask the jury to determine not only whether the temple violated Labor Law § 240(1), but also to determine whether Duran fell off the beam … . Under the particular circumstances of this case, this constituted a fundamental error warranting a new trial because the court’s instructions failed to explain to the jury that, in light of arguably inconsistent accounts of how the accident occurred, the jury was entitled to find that Duran did not fall from the beam or, alternatively, that he did fall from the beam but no safety device was required under Labor Law § 240(1). Further, there was sufficient evidence of juror confusion with respect to this issue … . Notably, the jury requested a readback of Labor Law § 240(1). The court’s errors in failing to properly charge the jury and add the interrogatory requested by the plaintiffs prejudiced a substantial right and warrants a new trial … . Duran v Temple Beth Sholom, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 07708, Second Dept 11-8-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (BECAUSE THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A BEAM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, IN ADDITION TO EVIDENCE HE TRIPPED OVER DEBRIS, THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BEAM, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SET ASIDE VERDICT, BECAUSE THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A BEAM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, IN ADDITION TO EVIDENCE HE TRIPPED OVER DEBRIS, THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BEAM, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, BECAUSE THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A BEAM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, IN ADDITION TO EVIDENCE HE TRIPPED OVER DEBRIS, THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BEAM, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, BECAUSE THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A BEAM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, IN ADDITION TO EVIDENCE HE TRIPPED OVER DEBRIS, THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BEAM, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 4404 (a) (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, BECAUSE THERE WAS EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A BEAM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, IN ADDITION TO EVIDENCE HE TRIPPED OVER DEBRIS, THE TRIAL JUDGE ERRED IN REFUSING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY TO DECIDE WHETHER PLAINTIFF FELL OFF THE BEAM, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

Categories

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

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy