You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law
,

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INJURED ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION WERE VIABLE HOWEVER, USE OF ALIAS WAS NOT A FRAUD UPON THE COURT.

The Second Department determined the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should have been dismissed because plaintiff was not injured on the construction site but rather on a storage site a few blocks away. Plaintiff was injured when he stepped in a hole. However the Labor Law 200 cause of action was viable. The Second Department also determined the plaintiff’s use of an alias to bring suit was not a fraud upon the court (plaintiff is an undocumented immigrant) but held that the complaint should be amended to reflect his actual name:

Turning to the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action, Royal and Vista established, prima facie, that at the time of the accident the plaintiff was not working in a construction area within the meaning of Labor Law § 241(6) … . They submitted evidence which established that the lot where the accident occurred was located several blocks away from the construction area, and was used to store materials. There was no construction taking place at the lot, and the plaintiff’s accident occurred as he was taking materials to a truck so they could be transported to the construction site. In opposition to this prima facie showing by Royal and Vista, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. …

With respect to the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action, this accident arose not from the manner in which the work was performed, but rather from an allegedly dangerous condition at the work site. Under such circumstances, liability may be imposed if the property owner created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it, and failed to remedy the condition within a reasonable amount of time … . Similarly, a general contractor may be held liable in common-law negligence and under Labor Law § 200 if it had control over the work site and actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition … . Bessa v Anflo Indus., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 02013, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INJURED ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION WERE VIABLE HOWEVER)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INJURED ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION WERE VIABLE HOWEVER, USE OF ALIAS WAS NOT A FRAUD UPON THE COURT)/ALIAS (BRINGING SUIT USING AN ALIAS WAS NOT A FRAUD ON THE COURT)/FRAUD (FRAUD UPON THE COURT, BRINGING SUIT USING AN ALIAS WAS NOT A FRAUD ON THE COURT)

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OBJECT THAT FELL WAS THE TYPE OF OBJECT WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED WITH A SAFETY DEVICE ENUMERATED IN THE LABOR LAW STATUTE.

The Second Department determined summary judgment should not have been granted to plaintiff on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff fell off a scissors lift when what he alleged was a “beam” came down from above him. The object which came down was also described as a “duct.” The Second Department found there was a question of fact whether the object which came down should have been secured by a safety device enumerated in the Labor Law statute:

The evidence submitted by the plaintiff was insufficient to establish that the beam in question fell due to the absence or inadequacy of an enumerated safety device. Specifically, there was a question of fact as to the nature of the “beam” at issue. The plaintiff alternately described it as a flat or narrow “metal slab supposedly made of Steel but it was mostly [copper],” or an iron or steel “beam.” The plaintiff’s supervisor described it as “like old duct work, metal studs,” and a representative of [defendant] described it as a “duct” or “ductwork.” Although the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of an expert who opined that a contractor’s lift should have been provided to hold “the beam” as it was being cut, the expert, whose opinion was rendered after reviewing the relevant deposition transcripts, failed to identify a basis for concluding that the object at issue was a “beam” or otherwise explain why a contractor’s lift was required to hold the object at issue, and thereby establish that this was “a situation where a hoisting or securing device of the kind enumerated in the statute would have been necessary or even expected” … . Romero v 2200 N. Steel, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 02075, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OBJECT THAT FELL WAS THE TYPE OF OBJECT WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED WITH A SAFETY DEVICE ENUMERATED IN THE LABOR LAW STATUTE)

,

PLAINTIFF’S INABILITY TO PINPOINT THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL FROM A LADDER DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THERE WAS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSE.

The First Department determined plaintiff’s inability to state exactly how the accident happened did not warrant summary judgment. Circumstantial evidence established that the bottom of plaintiff’s ladder slid out from under him:

“A plaintiff’s inability to testify exactly as to how an accident occurred does not require dismissal where negligence and causation can be established with circumstantial evidence” … . Plaintiff established his entitlement to partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, despite his admitted inability to remember the specifics of the accident, through the submission of a workers’ compensation report and the statement of defendant … , both of which established that the accident occurred when the bottom of the ladder from which plaintiff was descending suddenly slipped out from under him, causing him to fall to the ground … . Weicht v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 01995, 1st Dept 3-21-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF’S INABILITY TO PINPOINT THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL FROM A LADDER DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THERE WAS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSE)/EVIDENCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF’S INABILITY TO PINPOINT THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL FROM A LADDER DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THERE WAS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSE)/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF’S INABILITY TO PINPOINT THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL FROM A LADDER DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THERE WAS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSE)

,

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)

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