You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law
,

SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFF ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED UPON A FALL FROM A LADDER, WAS PREMATURE AS IT WAS BASED SOLELY ON PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the grant of summary judgment to plaintiff in this Labor Law 240 (1) action, based on plaintiff’s fall from a ladder, was premature. The ruling on the motion was based solely on the deposition of the plaintiff:

​

Stephen J. Jones (plaintiff), an employee and owner of third-party defendant Stephen J. Jones Contracting, Inc., fell from a ladder while working on a single-family home. Plaintiff and his wife thereafter commenced this Labor Law and common-law negligence action against, inter alia, defendant-third-party plaintiff Jay P. Tovey Co., Inc. (defendant), the general contractor on the project. Insofar as relevant to this appeal, plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant’s liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). We agree with defendant that, in view of the limited discovery that has been conducted, Supreme Court erred in granting the cross motion … . Notably, discovery has been limited to plaintiff’s own account of the accident during his examination before trial, and defendant has not had an opportunity to explore potential defenses … . Jones v Jay P. Tovey Co., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05017, 4th Dept 6-16-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFF ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED UPON A FALL FROM A LADDER, WAS PREMATURE AS IT WAS BASED SOLELY ON PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFF ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED UPON A FALL FROM A LADDER, WAS PREMATURE AS IT WAS BASED SOLELY ON PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION)

, , ,

INSURER WHICH OPTED NOT TO DEFEND THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE WAS REQUIRED TO INDEMNIFY THE INSURERS WHICH SETTLED THE CLAIM FOR BOTH DAMAGES AND EXCESS ATTORNEYS’ FEES, PLAINTIFF HIRED A MORE EXPENSIVE LAW FIRM ($795/HR) RATHER THAN USE THE FIRM HIRED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER ($150/HR).

The First Department, over a dissent, determined the plaintiff’s insurer (RLI), which opted not to defend this construction accident case, was required to indemnify the insurers who paid the $2.5 million settlement, both for the damages and the excess attorney’s fees. The plaintiff opted to hire a law firm other that the firm used by the workers’ compensation carrier (SLI). The workers’ compensation carrier paid $150/hour toward the other attorneys’ fees. The firm hired by plaintiff (Greenberg Traurig) charged $795/hr. The dissent argued the fees should have been capped at $150/hr. The other issue addressed by the court was the late notification of plaintiff’s insurer. The late notice was excused because of a good faith belief recovery was limited to workers’ compensation (and therefore subject to a policy exclusion):

​

RLI’s argument that the voluntary payment doctrine bars recovery of amounts paid to Greenberg Traurig in defense of the underlying claim is without merit. Having chosen to deny coverage and not participate in the defense, RLI “excluded itself from any aspect of the [p]laintiff’s defense in the Vasquez estate’s action,” including the negotiation of attorneys’ fees and the selection of attorneys, as so found by the motion court, and cannot now be heard to complain. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees incurred in defense of the underlying action as “damages which are the natural and probable consequence of the breach” by RLI of the contract of insurance … .

We reject defendant’s argument that the $150 per hour contributed by SIF acts as a ceiling on fees … . Any agreement between SIF and plaintiff as to fees has no bearing on RLI’s responsibility to provide a defense, save as it pertains to any eventual allocation of defense costs as between the two carriers … . The record does not contain a copy of the SIF policy, so we are unable to make any determination as to whether the carriers share the costs of defense in equal parts as primary carriers, or whether defendant RLI is solely responsible. It may be noted that under RLI’s policy, competing primary insurers are to contribute on an equal basis. Cohen Bros. Realty Corp. v RLI Ins. Co., 20 17 NY Slip Op 04776, 1st Dept 6-13-17

 

INSURANCE LAW (ATTORNEY’S FEES, INSURER WHICH OPTED NOT TO DEFEND THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE WAS REQUIRED TO INDEMNIFY THE INSURERS WHICH SETTLED THE CLAIM FOR BOTH DAMAGES AND EXCESS ATTORNEYS’ FEES, PLAINTIFF HIRED A MORE EXPENSIVE LAW FIRM ($795/HR) RATHER THAN USE THE FIRM HIRED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER ($150/HR))/ATTORNEYS (INSURANCE LAW, FEES, INSURER WHICH OPTED NOT TO DEFEND THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE WAS REQUIRED TO INDEMNIFY THE INSURERS WHICH SETTLED THE CLAIM FOR BOTH DAMAGES AND EXCESS ATTORNEYS’ FEES, PLAINTIFF HIRED A MORE EXPENSIVE LAW FIRM ($795/HR) RATHER THAN USE THE FIRM HIRED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER ($150/HR))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (INSURANCE LAW, WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, INSURER WHICH OPTED NOT TO DEFEND THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE WAS REQUIRED TO INDEMNIFY THE INSURERS WHICH SETTLED THE CLAIM FOR BOTH DAMAGES AND EXCESS ATTORNEYS’ FEES, PLAINTIFF HIRED A MORE EXPENSIVE LAW FIRM ($795/HR) RATHER THAN USE THE FIRM HIRED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CARRIER ($150/HR))

, ,

ACTION BY PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) AGAINST DEFENDANT’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA, CONCEPTS OF SUBROGATION AND PRIVITY EXPLAINED.

The First Department, over a detailed dissent which lays out the complicated facts, affirming Supreme Court (Reed, J.), determined the action by insurer’s subrogee (Nationwide) against the insured’s subrogee (US Underwriters) in this Labor Law (construction accident) action was barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata. The underlying action had settled for about $1.55 million.

FROM THE DISSENT (THE FACTS):

On or about July 9, 2001, Kerwin Park, an employee of Armadillo Construction Corp., a demolition contractor, sustained personal injuries while working on a construction site. Park commenced the underlying Labor Law action against the general contractor (Artimus) and others. Nationwide, Artimus’s insurer, tendered the defense of the action to Armadillo and Armadillo’s insurer, U.S. Underwriters; Artimus was an additional insured on the U.S. Underwriters policy. By letter dated August 31, 2001, U.S. Underwriters denied coverage to Artimus, copying the broker and Armadillo on the letter, based on late notice of occurrence and various exclusions in the policy. …[T]he underlying action settled for approximately $1.55 million. Nationwide contributed to the settlement on Artimus’s behalf. Artimus also obtained a default judgment on its third-party indemnification claim against Armadillo. … Artimus moved to restore its claims against Armadillo to the active calendar in the declaratory judgment action. In granting the motion, the court (Ramos, J.) cited to Justice Cahn’s earlier decision in the action and observed that no decision had been made concerning Armadillo’s entitlement to coverage. * * * Justice Reed granted U.S. Underwriters’ motion to dismiss the complaint, concluding that Artimus, as Armadillo’s subrogee, was collaterally estopped from bringing the instant action, because it was in privity with Armadillo, and whatever rules of collateral estoppel applied to Armadillo would also apply to Artimus (and its subrogee, Nationwide). The court found that as a consequence, Artimus was bound by Justice Cahn’s order. The court also found that the action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

​

FROM THE MAJORITY:

… [T]he parties were afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate the insurance coverage issues in the prior action. Nationwide is therefore collaterally estopped from litigating the same issues already decided against its subrogor, Artimus, who in turn is estopped from litigating the same issues decided against its subrogor, Armadillo, as a subrogee of the insured.

Moreover, the principles of res judicata favor defendants herein. Nationwide and Artimus seek to enforce the judgment that they were awarded against Armadillo in the third-party personal injury action. However … in the prior action the court found that the coverage exclusion with respect to the personal injury action in U.S. Underwriters policy was applicable. By bringing this action as subrogees of Artimus and Armadillo under Insurance Law § 3420, Nationwide and Artimus are essentially seeking to relitigate Artimus’s claims for coverage. “Res judicata is designed to provide finality in the resolution of disputes, recognizing that [c]onsiderations of judicial economy as well as fairness to the parties mandate, at some point, an end to litigation” … . Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 04774, 1st Dept 6-13-17

 

 

INSURANCE LAW (ACTION BY PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) AGAINST DEFENDANT’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA, CONCEPTS OF SUBROGATION AND PRIVITY EXPLAINED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (INSURANCE LAW, LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ACTION BY PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) AGAINST DEFENDANT’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA, CONCEPTS OF SUBROGATION AND PRIVITY EXPLAINED)/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (INSURANCE LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, ACTION BY PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) AGAINST DEFENDANT’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA, CONCEPTS OF SUBROGATION AND PRIVITY EXPLAINED)/COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (INSURANCE LAW, LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ACTION BY PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) AGAINST DEFENDANT’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA, CONCEPTS OF SUBROGATION AND PRIVITY EXPLAINED)/RES JUDICATA (INSURANCE LAW, LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ACTION BY PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) AGAINST DEFENDANT’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA, CONCEPTS OF SUBROGATION AND PRIVITY EXPLAINED)/PRIVITY (INSURANCE LAW, LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ACTION BY PLAINTIFF’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) AGAINST DEFENDANT’S SUBROGEE (INSURER) IN THIS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE BARRED BY COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND RES JUDICATA, CONCEPTS OF SUBROGATION AND PRIVITY EXPLAINED)

,

ALTHOUGH THE TOWN HIRED PLAINTIFF TO REPAIR A VACANT HOUSE, THE TOWN WAS NOT AN OWNER OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER.

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff town’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action should have been granted. Plaintiff was hired by the town to repair a vacant house. He fell from a ladder. The Fourth Department determined the town was not an “owner” or “general contractor” within the meaning of the Labor Law statutes:

​

We agree with the Town that it established as a matter of law that it is not liable for plaintiff’s injuries under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) inasmuch as it was not an owner of the property or a general contractor on the project. For the purposes of the Labor Law, the term “owner” encompasses the titleholder of the property where the accident occurred, as well as “a person who has an interest in the property and who fulfilled the role of owner by contracting to have work performed for his [or her] benefit”… . Here, the Town did not hold title to the property, nor did it have any interest in the property… . Furthermore, even assuming, arguendo, that the Town was an owner of the property, we conclude that the Town would be entitled to the homeowner exemption under the Labor Law … .

We further conclude that the Town established as a matter of law that it was not a general contractor on the project … . The Town submitted evidence establishing that no Town employees were on the job site, plaintiff’s employer, and not the Town, directed plaintiff to the job site, and the Town did not have the authority to direct plaintiff with respect to the method and manner in which he would perform the work. Thus, the Town established that it was not a general contractor inasmuch as it was not “responsible for coordinating and supervising the project” … , and plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact.  Berner v Town of Cheektowaga, 2017 NY Slip Op 04610, 4th Dept 6-9-17

 

MUNICIPAL LAW (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ALTHOUGH THE TOWN HIRED PLAINTIFF TO REPAIR A VACANT HOUSE, THE TOWN WAS NOT AN OWNER OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER)/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (MUNICIPAL LAW,  ALTHOUGH THE TOWN HIRED PLAINTIFF TO REPAIR A VACANT HOUSE, THE TOWN WAS NOT AN OWNER OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW, TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED FOR THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER)

PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A PLANK WHICH FELL OFF A SCAFFOLD, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED.

The First Department determined summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) was properly granted. Plaintiff was struck by a plank which fell from a scaffold that was being dismantled:

​

Whether or not the scaffold provided workers at the site with adequate protection for working at an elevation, the unsecured plank falling from the scaffold and striking plaintiff as the scaffold was being moved constituted a distinct elevation-related hazard requiring the securing of the plank for the purpose of moving the scaffold … . Gonzalez v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 04555, 1st Dept 6-8-17

​

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A PLANK WHICH FELL OFF A SCAFFOLD, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) PROPERLY GRANTED)/FALLING OBJECTS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF STRUCK BY A PLANK WHICH FELL OFF A SCAFFOLD, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) PROPERLY GRANTED)

FALL INTO AN UNGUARDED TRENCH WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION.

The Fist Department determined plaintiff was properly granted summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6). Plaintiff was directing traffic when he was struck by a truck fell into an unguarded trench:

​

Plaintiff Martin Gjeka made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, by submitting his and other witnesses’ testimony that he was directing traffic around an unguarded trench in the road measuring approximately five to eight feet deep, which was being excavated to allow new sewer lines to be installed for a building … , when a truck … traveling about 25 or 30 miles per hour, struck plaintiff, causing him to fall into the trench. Such testimony, as well as plaintiff’s two expert affidavits, established that his work exposed him to an extraordinary gravity-related risk, and that the absence of any safety device such as a barrier or safety railing around the trench was a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) … .  …

​

Labor Law § 241(6) imposes on owners a nondelegable duty to comply with specific safety regulations … . Industrial Code § 23-1.7(b)(1) requires that “hazardous opening[s] into which a person may step or fall” must “be guarded by a substantial cover . . . or by a safety railing.” Industrial Code § 23-4.2(h) requires that “[a]ny open excavation adjacent to a . . . street, . . . or other area lawfully frequented by any person shall be effectively guarded.” Both are plainly applicable to this case. Gjeka v Iron Horse Transp., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 04536, 1st Dept 6-8-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FALL INTO AN UNGUARDED TRENCH WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION)/TRENCHES (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, FALL INTO AN UNGUARDED TRENCH WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION)

AFTER THE JURY HAD FOUND DEFENDANT DID NOT VIOLATE LABOR LAW 240 (1), THE APPELLATE COURT DETERMINED PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION AT THE OUTSET, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A LADDER WHEN THE LADDER SHIFTED.

After a full trial the jury found defendant did not violate Labor Law 240 (1) and awarded damages on plaintiff’s Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action. Plaintiff had fallen from a ladder when it shifted. The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted at the outset. Because the jury apportioned fault, the damages had to be revamped because comparative fault does not apply to a Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. The court noted that plaintiff’s undocumented immigrant status and the fact he did not pay taxes and used a coworker’s name, issues raised by the defendant (apparently in opposition to plaintiff’s summary judgment motion), had no relevance to credibility as to any material fact:

​

Before the matter proceeded to a trial on the issue of liability, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. The plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through his deposition testimony, which indicated that he was working on an unsecured ladder that moved while he was standing on it … . In opposition, Drake, which submitted only an attorney’s affirmation, failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Contrary to Drake’s contention, the fact that the plaintiff was an undocumented immigrant who failed to pay taxes and had used a coworker’s name to obtain health insurance immediately following the accident does not present an issue relating to the plaintiff’s credibility as to any material fact … .

Further, as “contributory negligence will not exonerate a defendant who has violated [Labor Law § 240(1)] and proximately caused a plaintiff’s injury” … , the jury’s finding of comparative fault, and the corresponding reduction in the damages awarded to the plaintiff, must be vacated. Cano v Mid-Valley Oil Co., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 04419, 2nd Dept 6-7-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (AFTER THE JURY HAD FOUND DEFENDANT DID NOT VIOLATE LABOR LAW 240 (1), THE APPELLATE COURT DETERMINED PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION AT THE OUTSET, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A LADDER WHEN THE LADDER SHIFTED)/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, AFTER THE JURY HAD FOUND DEFENDANT DID NOT VIOLATE LABOR LAW 240 (1), THE APPELLATE COURT DETERMINED PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION AT THE OUTSET, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A LADDER WHEN THE LADDER SHIFTED)

PLAINTIFF SLIPPED ON ROSIN PAPER WHICH WAS PLACED ON THE STEPS AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE WORK, LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law causes of action were properly dismissed. Plaintiff slipped and fell on rosin paper on a step. Use of rosin paper was an integral part of the work. The court determined the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly dismissed because the accident was not caused by the operation of gravity within the meaning of the statute and the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action was properly dismissed because the rosin paper was not a foreign substance:

In support of that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff’s injuries were not the direct consequence of the application of the force of gravity to an object or person … and, thus, fell outside the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1). …

The defendants also established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action, premised upon a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d), by establishing that the protective rosin paper upon which the plaintiff slipped was an integral part of the tile work … .As such, the rosin paper does not constitute a “foreign substance” within the meaning of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) … . Lopez v Edge 11211, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 04262, 2nd Dept 5-31-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF SLIPPED ON ROSIN PAPER WHICH WAS PLACED ON THE STEPS AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE WORK, LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED)

PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN UNSECURED A-FRAME LADDER THAT SHIFTED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted in this Labor Law 240 (1) action based upon the allegation an unsecured A-frame ladder shifted for no apparent reason cause plaintiff to fall from it:

Labor Law § 240(1) imposes upon owners and general contractors, and their agents, a nondelegable duty to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites… . “To prevail on a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, a plaintiff must establish that the statute was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries” … .

Here, the plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). According to [plaintiff’s] deposition testimony, he was standing on an unsecured A-frame ladder when the ladder shifted for no apparent reason, causing him to fall … . In opposition, [defendant] failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Alvarez’s own actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident … . Alvarez v Vingsan L.P., 2017 NY Slip Op 04241, 2nd Dept 5-31-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN UNSECURED A-FRAME LADDER THAT SHIFTED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED)/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN UNSECURED A-FRAME LADDER THAT SHIFTED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED)

TAKING MEASUREMENTS IN PREPARATION FOR ROOF WORK IS AN ACTIVITY COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON HIS FALL FROM A BROKEN LADDER WAS PROPERLY GRANTED.

The First Department determined plaintiff was properly awarded summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. The ladder plaintiff was using to take measurements in preparation for work broke. Taking measurements is an activity covered by the Labor Law:

The motion court correctly determined that plaintiffs were entitled to partial summary judgment against defendant owners on the issue of section 240(1) liability because the ladder that plaintiff … was using to take measurements in preparation for work to be performed on the roof of defendant owners’ building broke, causing him to fall to the ground … . Contrary to defendant owners’ contention, the work that plaintiff was engaged in was a protected activity within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Ortiz-Cruz v Evers, 2017 NY Slip Op 04228, 1st Dept 5-30-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (TAKING MEASUREMENTS IN PREPARATION FOR ROOF WORK IS AN ACTIVITY COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON HIS FALL FROM A BROKEN LADDER WAS PROPERLY GRANTED)/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, TAKING MEASUREMENTS IN PREPARATION FOR ROOF WORK IS AN ACTIVITY COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON HIS FALL FROM A BROKEN LADDER WAS PROPERLY GRANTED)/MEASURING (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, (TAKING MEASUREMENTS IN PREPARATION FOR ROOF WORK IS AN ACTIVITY COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON HIS FALL FROM A BROKEN LADDER WAS PROPERLY GRANTED)

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