You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law
,

PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION AGAINST ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, LABOR LAW 240(1) INAPPLICABLE TO ELEVATOR ACCIDENT.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question fact whether a defective elevator part caused the elevator to fall when plaintiff, who was repairing the elevator, was in the elevator car. The court further determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) was properly dismissed because securing the elevator to prevent a fall would have made repairing the elevator impossible:

… [P]aintiff raised issues of fact whether the shim was defective and a cause of the accident and whether there was a failure to warn. Plaintiff’s expert opined that the cracked shoe caused the elevator car to get wedged in the hoistway in the manner that plaintiff described, and … [an] engineer involved in the design of the elevator acknowledged that the car could come out of the rails and get hung up if a guide shoe cracked while the elevator was descending. The engineer also testified that, after a previous instance in which a similar guide shoe by the same manufacturer had cracked because bolts had been over-tightened, [the manufacturer] had redesigned the shim in 2003 to prevent the guide shoe from cracking because of over-tightening of the bolts, but had made no effort to notify customers whose elevators had the older shims.

The elevator was not a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Plaintiff’s reliance on McCrea v Arnlie Realty Co. LLC (140 AD3d 427 [1st Dept 2016]) is unavailing. In that case, the elevator on which the plaintiff was engaged in repair work fell onto the plaintiff because it had not been secured. In this case, plaintiff was inside the elevator, riding up and down to test it. To the extent plaintiff may have been engaged in “repair” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1), the statute does not apply, because any securing device would have defeated the purpose of his work by precluding him from riding the elevator … . Versace v 1540 Broadway L.P., 2017 NY Slip Op 01813, 1st Dept 3-15-17

 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION AGAINST ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, LABOR LAW 240(1) INAPPLICABLE TO ELEVATOR ACCIDENT)/ELEVATORS (PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION AGAINST ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, LABOR LAW 240(1) INAPPLICABLE TO ELEVATOR ACCIDENT)/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION AGAINST ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, LABOR LAW 240(1) INAPPLICABLE TO ELEVATOR ACCIDENT)

INJURY WHILE TRIMMING A TREE NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 OR LABOR LAW 240(1).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 and 240(1) causes of action. Plaintiff was injured by a power saw as he was standing on a ladder cutting a tree branch. The Labor Law 200 cause of action was dismissed because defendants did not control the manner of plaintiff’s work. The Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was dismissed because tree-trimming was not encompassed by the statute:

Here, the accident arose from the manner in which the work was performed, and the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim by submitting evidence demonstrating that they did not have the authority to supervise or control the methods or materials of the plaintiff’s work … . …

The defendants established, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s tree branch cutting work was outside the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1), because a tree is not a “building or structure” within the meaning of the statute … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. His contention that the tree branch cutting work was necessary to complete a larger renovation project with respect to the building on the premises is unsupported by the record … . Olarte v Morgan, 2017 NY Slip Op 01874, 2nd Dept 3-15-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (INJURY WHILE TRIMMING A TREE NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 OR LABOR LAW 240(1))/TREE TRIMMING (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, INJURY WHILE TRIMMING A TREE NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 OR LABOR LAW 240(1))

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, FALL FROM A-FRAME LADDER.

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff fell when the A-frame ladder moved when he was standing on it:

Plaintiff established his entitlement to partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim through his testimony that he was injured when the A-frame ladder on which he was standing moved underneath him as he applied pressure to it while trying to remove part of the drop ceiling he was demolishing … . Plaintiff was not required to show that the ladder was defective or that he actually fell off the ladder to satisfy his prima facie burden … .

Defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident. There is no testimony in the record as to whether there were other readily available, adequate safety devices at the accident site that plaintiff declined to use … . Moreover, the evidence establishes that the ladder twisted underneath plaintiff because it was unsecured, not because he misused it, and that defendants provided no other safety devices for his use. At most, plaintiff’s application of pressure to the ladder while engaged in the work he was directed to do, which caused it to twist, was comparative negligence, no defense to a section 240(1) claim … . “Regardless of the method employed by plaintiff to remove [the drop ceiling], the ladder provided to him was not an adequate safety device for the task he was performing” … . Messina v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 01823, 1st Dept 3-15-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, FALL FROM A-FRAME LADDER)/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, FALL FROM A-FRAME LADDER)

TILTING A SKID FROM A VERTICAL POSITION ONTO A DOLLY IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SAFETY DEVICE WAS REQUIRED.

The First Department determined Labor Law 240(1) applied to the task of tilting a skid from a vertical position to a dolly.  However, there was a question of fact whether the skid was heavy enough to require a safety device:

Plaintiff was injured when he and a coworker attempted to move a wooden skid from a vertical position onto an A-frame dolly by tilting it at a 45-degree angle on one corner and toppling it onto the dolly. While plaintiff hoisted his side of the skid overhead with his arms, his coworker apparently lost his grip, and the skid fell on plaintiff, causing tears in his arm and shoulder.

That plaintiff and the skid were on the same level does not bar application of Labor Law § 240(1) … .

However, contrary to plaintiff’s argument, a triable issue of fact exists as to the weight of the skid and, therefore, whether a safety device was required under the statute. Natoli v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 01818, 1st Dept 3-15-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (TILTING A SKID FROM A VERTICAL POSITION ONTO A DOLLY IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SAFETY DEVICE WAS REQUIRED)

LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD SURVIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE ITEMS PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER WERE NOT INTEGRAL TO THE WORK BEING DONE BY PLAINTIFF AT THE TIME HE FELL.

The First Department determined Labor Law 241(6) causes action based on the allegation plaintiff tripped on discarded concrete and rebar should survive summary judgment because plaintiff demonstrated the concrete and rebar were not integral to his work:

Plaintiffs established that the excess wet concrete discarded on the plywood on which plaintiff slipped was not integral to the work being performed by plaintiff at the accident site … . Plaintiff did not work with concrete and concrete was not a part of his responsibilities in constructing the tables and forms used to hold the rebar and other ironwork in place. Similarly, the rebar on which plaintiff tripped was not integral to the work he was performing, and defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2) was correctly denied ,,, . Plaintiff presented evidence that he did not work with rebar and that rebar was not integral to any work being done on the day of the accident. Pereira v New School, 2017 NY Slip Op 01627, 1st Dept 3-2-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD SURVIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE ITEMS PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER WERE NOT INTEGRAL TO THE WORK BEING DONE BY PLAINTIFF AT THE TIME HE FELL)

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF FELL OFF MATERIAL STACKED ON A FLATBED TRUCK.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. He fell from scaffolding materials stacked on a flatbed truck:

Plaintiff’s testimony that he fell from scaffolding materials stacked atop the surface of a flatbed truck, about 10 feet above the ground, and that he was not provided with a safety device that would have prevented his fall, was sufficient to establish his entitlement to partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . Although plaintiff was wearing a safety harness at the time of the accident, there was no place on the truck where the harness could be secured. Idona v Manhattan Plaza, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 01444m 1st Dept 2-23-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF FELL OFF MATERIAL STACKED ON A FLATBED TRUCK)/TRUCKS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF FELL OFF MATERIAL STACKED ON A FLATBED TRUCK)

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS NOT AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, HE WAS INJURED IN A TEMPORARY FACILITY DOING WORK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 241 (6) action should not have been granted on the ground plaintiff was not injured on a construction site. Plaintiff was not where the construction was being done, but was on a “temporary facility” (Bronx Yard) preparing rebar for the construction site:

Collavino [superstructure concrete contractor], subcontracted by Lend Lease [property owner], which was hired by 56 Leonard [construction manager], was responsible for furnishing “[a]ll temporary Project site facilities” and agreed “to place its Temporary Facilities in locations designated by Owner or Construction Manager.” Additionally, the Temporary License for the Bronx Yard was secured solely by Collavino, and for the purpose of completing work to be “forwarded directly to a construction site in Manhattan.”  Gerrish v 56 Leonard LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 01262, 1st Dept 2-16-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTIION LAW (ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS NOT AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, HE WAS INJURED IN A TEMPORARY FACILITY DOING WORK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/CONSTRUCTION SITE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS NOT AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, HE WAS INJURED IN A TEMPORARY FACILITY DOING WORK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

UNCONTESTED TESTIMONY A WHEEL ON A HAND-PROPELLED DEBRIS CONTAINER STOPPED TURNING FREELY AS PLAINTIFF WAS MOVING IT (CAUSING INJURY) REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) ACTION.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 241 (6) action should not have been granted. Plaintiff was using a hand propelled wheeled container containing 500 to 800 pounds of construction debris when, it is alleged, one of the wheels allegedly stopped turning intermittently. When plaintiff pulled hard the container came to rest on his foot. The Industrial Code requires such containers to have “free-running” wheels:

Plaintiff testified that immediately before the alleged accident, he struggled to move the mini-container after the wheel apparently became stuck, and that as a result, he was injured when the mini-container rolled onto his foot when he forcefully pulled it in an attempt to move it. This uncontradicted testimony presents a question of fact on whether the wheels on the mini-container were “free-running” as required by 12 NYCRR 23-1.28(b) … . Ahern v NYU Langone Med. Ctr., 2017 NY Slip Op 01264, 1st Dept 2-16-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (UNCONTESTED TESTIMONY A WHEEL ON A HAND-PROPELLED DEBRIS CONTAINER STOPPED TURNING FREELY AS PLAINTIFF WAS MOVING IT (CAUSING INJURY) REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) ACTION)/INDUSTRIAL CODE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, UNCONTESTED TESTIMONY A WHEEL ON A HAND-PROPELLED DEBRIS CONTAINER STOPPED TURNING FREELY AS PLAINTIFF WAS MOVING IT (CAUSING INJURY) REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) ACTION)

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD NOTICE OF CRACKED CONCRETE SLAB WHICH COLLAPSED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY INDUSTRIAL CODE VIOLATION, LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The Second Department determined, re: plaintiff’s common law negligence cause of action, there was a question of fact whether defendants had constructive notice of a cracking concrete slap which collapsed. However plaintiff’s Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action should have been dismissed because no applicable provision of the Industrial Code was identified by the plaintiff:

… [T]he defendants submitted, inter alia, the deposition testimony of the plaintiff, in which he stated that for up to 10 days prior to the accident, he observed that the place where the concrete eventually collapsed had “lines . . . indicating the breaking points.” Thus, by their own submissions, the defendants raised an issue of fact as to whether the allegedly dangerous condition was visible and apparent and existed for a sufficient length of time prior to the plaintiff’s fall to permit them to discover and remedy it … . …

In order to establish a Labor Law § 241(6) claim, a plaintiff must allege a violation of a specific and applicable provision of the Industrial Code … . Here, although the plaintiff’s bill of particulars alleged a violation of Labor Law § 241(6), it failed to identify any specific provision of the Industrial Code that the defendants allegedly violated … . Furthermore, in opposition to summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to allege a violation of any specific provision of the Industrial Code, and did not address the issue … . Grabowski v Board of Mgrs. of Avonova Condominium, 2017 NY Slip Op 01185, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY INDUSTRIAL CODE VIOLATION, LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/NJEGLIGENCE (CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD NOTICE OF CRACKED CONCRETE SLAB WHICH COLLAPSED)/CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE (NEGLIGENCE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD NOTICE OF CRACKED CONCRETE SLAB WHICH COLLAPSED)

,

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO CPLR 4401 PROPERLY GRANTED ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, JURY HAD FOUND THE LABOR LAW 240(1) VIOLATION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs’ motion for a judgment as a matter of law (CPLR 4401) on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff fell from the top of a boiler when a co-worker accidentally caused hot water and steam to escape from a valve. The jury found that the Labor Law 240(1) violation was not the proximate cause of the accident:

Here, the evidence adduced at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, demonstrated that the defendant failed to provide an adequate safety device to the plaintiff, and that this failure proximately caused the plaintiff’s fall. The fact that the plaintiff’s coworker bumped into the valves, which caused hot water and steam to pour onto the plaintiff and precipitated his fall, was not of such an extraordinary nature or so attenuated from the defendant’s conduct that responsibility for the injury should not reasonably be attributed to it … . Moreover, in light of the statutory violation, even if the plaintiff were negligent in some respect, his comparative negligence would not bar liability under Labor Law § 240(1) … . Raia v Berkeley Coop. Towers Section II Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 01243, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO CPLR 4401 PROPERLY GRANTED ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, JURY HAD FOUND THE LABOR LAW 240(1) VIOLATION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT)/PROXIMATE CAUSE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO CPLR 4401 PROPERLY GRANTED ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, JURY HAD FOUND THE LABOR LAW 240(1) VIOLATION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT)/JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW (CPLR 4401) (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO CPLR 4401 PROPERLY GRANTED ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, JURY HAD FOUND THE LABOR LAW 240(1) VIOLATION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT)

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