You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law

THE FOLD-DOWN LADDER WHICH WAS PERMANENTLY ATTACHED TO THE CEILING WAS THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A LADDER FOR GAINING ACCESS TO THE ATTIC; PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN THE LADDER DETACHED FROM THE CEILING; PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor :Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action. Plaintiff needed to access the attic using a fold-down ladder which was permanently attached to the ceiling. The ladder came loose from the ceiling and plaintiff fell to the floor:

​… [T]he plaintiff described the ladder as “a type of stairs that are up on the attic and you pull them” with a rope, and the stairs would unfold and extend to the floor to allow someone to climb up them. The plaintiff acknowledged that the pull-down attic stairs were permanently affixed to the ceiling, but he also testified that climbing the pull-down attic stairs was the only way to access the attic, which he was required to access to connect certain cables to a security camera. * * *

… [T]he pull-down attic stairs, in effect, operated as a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … , since the pull-down attic stairs served as the functional equivalent of a ladder at the time of the accident … . The plaintiff’s testimony that the pull-down attic stairs detached from the ceiling and fell as he was ascending them, causing him to fall, demonstrated, prima facie, that the defendants violated Labor Law § 240(1) and that this violation proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries … . …

To establish liability under Labor Law § 241(6), a plaintiff must demonstrate that his or her injuries were proximately caused by a violation of an Industrial Code provision mandating compliance with concrete specifications …  Pursuant to 12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(1), “[e]very ladder shall be capable of sustaining without breakage, dislodgment or loosening of any component at least four times the maximum load intended to be placed thereon.” Here, given the plaintiff’s testimony that the pull-down attic stairs fell as he was ascending them, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that the defendants violated 12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(1) … . Jaimes-Gutierrez v 37 Raywood Dr., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 06187, Second Dept 12-11-24

Practice Point: Although the fold-down stairs to the attic were permanently attached to the ceiling, it it was the functional equivalent of a ladder and served as a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6).

 

, ,

THE PEBBLES ON WHICH PLAINTIFF SLIPPED MET THE CRITERIA FOR A “FOREIGN SUBSTANCE” AND A “SLIPPERY CONDITION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE MECHANICS OF THE 30-DAY COURT-OF-APPEALS “APPEAL CLOCK” EXPLAINED IN THE CONTEXT OF ELECTRONIC FILING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division’s dismissal of the Labor Law 241(6) causes of action, determined the loose pebbles on which plaintiff slipped were not “inherent in the work” and, therefore, the Industrial Code provisions prohibiting “foreign substances” and “slippery conditions” applied.  In addition, the Court of Appeals held one party’s appeal to the Court was untimely and explained how the 30-day appeal clock works with electronic filing:

* * * To be effective to start CPLR 5513 (b)’s 30-day clock, service must comply with CPLR 2103. CPLR 2103 (b) (7), in turn, empowers the Chief Administrative Judge to authorize electronic service. * * * … [I]n an electronic filing case, service via filing on the NYSCEF docket for the trial court is effective to start CPLR 5513 (b)’s 30-day clock. * * *

Plaintiff testified … that, while attempting to install a 500-pound glass panel into a metal channel cut into the floor of the construction site, he slipped on concrete pebbles—that he believed came from the installation of the metal channel—and sustained injuries to his spine. …

… {Defendants] failed to demonstrate that the concrete pebbles that allegedly created the slipping hazard were integral to the work, because they did not conclusively show that the pebbles were “inherent to the task at hand, and not . . . avoidable without obstructing the work or imperiling the worker” … . As to … Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (d), [defendants] did not demonstrate that the concrete pebbles were not a “foreign substance” because, at the time of the alleged injury, the pebbles were “not a component of the [floor] and w[ere] not necessary to the [floor]’s functionality” … . [Defendants] did not demonstrate that the pebbles did not cause a “slippery condition” … . Regarding Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (e) (2), this provision is not limited to “tripping” hazards … . Ruisech v Structure Tone Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 05866, CtApp 11-25-24

Practice Point: The pebbles on which plaintiff slipped were not integral to the work and met the criteria for a “foreign substance” and “slippery condition” in the Industrial Code.

Practice Point. Consult this decision for an explanation of the mechanics of the 30-day period for taking an appeal to the Court of Appeals in the context of electronic filing.

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A FALLING BEAM WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT OTHERWISE PROTECTED FROM FALLING OBJECTS; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was struck by a falling beam which should have been secured. The fact that plaintiff did not know where the beam came from did not preclude summary judgment:

Plaintiff’s proof showed that the support beam was a load that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking … .Further, the elevated platform was not guarded by a safety device such as netting or enclosure that would have prevented the beam from falling on plaintiff … .

While plaintiff and his coworker did not actually witness where the beam came from, plaintiff “is not required to show the exact circumstances under which the object fell,” provided he can demonstrate that the lack of a protective device called for under Labor Law § 240(1) proximately caused his injuries …  A plaintiff’s prima facie case is “not dependent on whether he had observed what had hit him, or whether the object in question was dropped or fell in some other manner ” … .  Fromel v W2005/Hines W. Fifty-Third Realty, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 05828, First Dept 11-21-24

Practice Point: Being struck by an unsecured falling object, and the failure to provide protection from falling objects, may warrant summary judgment on a Labor law 240(1) cause of action.

 

PLYWOOD DELIBERATELY PLACED AS A TEMPORARY FLOOR DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “DIRT AND DEBRIS” OR “SCATTERED TOOLS AND MATERIALS” OR “SHARP PROTECTIONS” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S STEPPING IN A HOLE IN THE PLYWOOD AND FALLING IS NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 241(6) (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action because the plywood used for temporary flooring, which had a hole in it which caused plaintiff to fall, was not “dirt and debris” or “scattered tools or materials” or “sharp projections” within the meaning of the Industrial Code:

… Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (e) (2), … provides:

“Working areas. The parts of floors, platforms and similar areas where persons work or pass shall be kept free from accumulations of dirt and debris and from scattered tools and materials and from sharp projections insofar as may be consistent with the work being performed.”

On its face, section 23-1.7(e)(2) does not apply to all potential tripping hazards but only to “accumulations of dirt and debris,” “scattered tools and materials,” and “sharp projections.” As plaintiff admitted in his deposition testimony, the perforated plywood board on which he tripped had been deliberately placed on the stripped floor as a protective measure, in response to plaintiff’s own complaints. Thus, as a matter of law, the plywood board, notwithstanding its hole, could not be described as an “accumulation[] of . . . debris” or as part of a “scatter[ing]” of “tools and materials” … . Accordingly, as a matter of law, the plywood board did not fall within the scope of Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(2). Cioppa v ESRT 112 W. 34th St., L.P., 2024 NY Slip Op 05482, First Dept 11-7-24

Practice Point: Plywood placed as a temporary floor does not constitute “dirt and debris” within the meaning of the Industrial Code. Therefore stepping in a hole in the plywood and falling is not covered by Labor Law 241(6).

 

,

A 400-POUND DUCT LIFT TOPPLED OFF AN UNSTEADY RAMP AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF; ALTHOUGH THE LIFT DROPPED ONLY 10 TO 12 INCHES, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff was struck by a 400 pound duct lift which toppled off an unsteady ramp. The lift fell only 10 to 12 inches, but met the criteria for a gravity-related accident covered by Labor Law 240(1):

… Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), as the defendants failed to satisfy their prima facie burden. Although the defendants submitted evidence establishing that the alleged elevation differential measured only 10 to 12 inches, given the heavy weight of the duct lift and the amount of force it was capable of generating, the elevation differential was not de minimis … . The plaintiff submitted evidence to show that he suffered harm that flowed directly from the application of the force of gravity to the duct lift … .

Moreover, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s cross-motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The plaintiff submitted, inter alia, a transcript of his deposition testimony, which established, prima facie, that the defendants violated Labor Law § 240(1) by failing to provide an appropriate safety device, namely a secured ramp, to protect against the elevation-related hazard that was posed by maneuvering the heavy duct lift over the ramp … . Davila v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 05433, Second Dept 11-6-24

Practice Point: A heavy object falling 10 to 12 inches from an unsteady ramp, striking plaintiff, is covered by Labor Law 240(1). The incident was caused by defendants’ failure to provided an adequately secured ramp.

 

,

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH A SECURED A-FRAME LADDER AND WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH ANYTHING TO SECURE THE PIPE HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO REMOVE WHEN IT FELL AND STRUCK THE LADDER; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THE “RECALCITRANT WORKER” AND “FAILURE TO FOLLOW SAFETY INSTRUCTIONS” ALLEGATIONS DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).​ ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was standing on an unsecured A-frame ladder when a piece of pipe he was attempting remove fell and struck the ladder. The unsecured ladder was not an adequate safety device and no safety device was provided to secure the pipe. Allegations the plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker and was the proximate cause of the accident did not raise a question of fact:​

Defendants are liable for these injuries because plaintiff was not provided any safety devices except an unsecured ladder … .

Plaintiff was also not provided any safety devices to secure the pipe while it was being removed … . The use of a safety device to secure the pipe would not have impeded the work in progress … . Even if plaintiff’s coworkers were supposed to hold the pipe as he cut it, “people are not safety devices within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1)” … .

… While defendants contend that plaintiff’s foreman gave him safety instructions concerning how to cut the pipe and where to place the ladder so that it would not be hit by a falling pipe, plaintiff was not recalcitrant because he was not provided with an adequate safety device to secure the pipe “in the first instance” … .

There is also no issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident because, even if the length of the pipe that plaintiff cut was too long, he was not provided with an adequate safety device to secure the pipe … . Furthermore, even if plaintiff disregarded an instruction not to place the ladder where the pipe could hit it, that was not the sole proximate cause of the accident as “an instruction to avoid an unsafe practice is not a sufficient substitute for providing a worker with a safety device to allow him to complete his work safely” … . Jara-Salazar v 250 Park, L.L.C., 2024 NY Slip Op 05407, First Dept 10-31-24

Practice Point: If an accident is the result of the failure to provide plaintiff with adequate safety equipment, the allegation plaintiff failed to follow safety instructions will not raise a question of fact.​

Practice Point: Here the failure to provide safety devices to secure a pipe which was being removed from the ceiling when it fell was a ground for defendants’ liability.

 

,

PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD WITH NO GUARDRAILS; DEFENDANTS’ AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING GUARDRAILS WERE AVAILABLE WAS NOT BASED ON FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT; PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this scaffold-fall case. The scaffold had no guardrails. The affidavit presented by the defendants stating that there were guardrails available did not raise a question of fact because the affiant was not at the site on the day of the fall:

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action by submitting undisputed evidence that he fell off a scaffold, which lacked guardrails that would have prevented his fall, after the scaffold moved while he was standing atop it … .

Defendants failed to raise an issue of fact in opposition as to whether plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker. Although defendants presented an affidavit from the principal of nonparty contactor and plaintiff’s employer stating that there was a standing order for its employees to use only baker scaffolds with safety railings, that there were safety railings available at the worksite, and that safety railings would be provided upon request, this testimony does not suffice to raise an issue of fact. On the contrary, the principal expressly acknowledged that he was not present on the worksite on the date of plaintiff’s injury, and he offered no basis to find that he personally knew sufficient guardrails were present at the worksite for plaintiff to use on the scaffold … . Indeed, plaintiff testified that there were no guardrails available for use on the date of the incident. Ruiz v BOP 245 Park LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 05419, First Dept 10-31-24

Practice Point: Here an affidavit which was not based on first-hand knowledge was deemed insufficient to raise a question of fact.

 

, ,

PHOTOS SUBMITTED AS A NOTICE TO ADMIT DID NOT SHOW THE METAL OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL; ALTHOUGH THE PHOTOS ARE DEEMED TO SHOW THE PROJECT SITE ON THE DAY OF THE FALL, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE PHOTOS DEPICTED THE CONDITION OF THE SITE AT THE TIME OF THE FALL OR IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE FALL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff alleged he tripped on metal debris and fell. Defendants submitted three photographs alleged to depict the project site on the day of the plaintiff’s fall as a notice to admit. The photos did not show any metal debris. Although plaintiff did not respond to the notice to admit, thereby deeming the allegations admitted, the photos did not establish the condition of the depicted area at the time of plaintiff’s trip and fall, or immediately prior to the fall:

According to plaintiff, his accident occurred as he was retrieving wooden planks for his coworker to install on the floor. Doing so required plaintiff to traverse over an uncovered beam pocket measuring three feet wide and three feet deep. His accident occurred when he tripped over metal debris on the floor and fell into the beam pocket. Plaintiff was wearing a harness with a yo-yo/at the time of his accident, but there was no place for him to tie off. * * *

… Defendants rely on a notice to admit that they served on plaintiff seeking his admissions that three photos annexed thereto … depicted the project site on the day of plaintiff’s accident. Plaintiff did not respond to the notice to admit, deeming the allegations admitted (CPLR 3123 [a]). However, these admissions do not establish that those photos fairly and accurately depict the location of plaintiff’s accident either at the time thereof or immediately prior thereto. Thus, the absence from those photos of the metal on which plaintiff claims to have tripped does not raise an issue of fact as to the manner in which plaintiff’s accident occurred. Guzman-Saquisili v Harlem Urban Dev. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 05420, First Dept 10-31-24

Practice Point: Photos which depict the condition of the area of plaintiff’s fall on the day of the fall, without more specificity about when the photos were taken, may not be deemed to depict the area at the time of the fall or immediately prior to the fall.

 

INSTALLING ELECTRIC CABLES IS CONSTRUCTION WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241(6); PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS STRUCK IN THE EYE BY A CABLE, SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATED THE EYE-PROTECTION-EQUIPMENT REGULATION IN THE INDUSTRIAL CODE APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant, Kamco, was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law 241(6) cause of action. Plaintiff (Lopez) alleged he was struck in the eye by an electrical cable as he was attempting to connect it. Plaintiff (Lopez) alleged Kamco violated the Industrial Code by failing to provide eye-protection equipment:

“‘[T]he courts have generally held that the scope of Labor Law § 241(6) is governed by 12 NYCRR 23-1.4(b)(13), which defines construction work expansively. Under that regulation, construction work consists of [a]ll work of the types performed in the construction, erection, alteration, repair, maintenance, painting or moving of buildings or other structures'” … . Construction work pursuant to 12 NYCRR 23-1.4(b)(13) may include “the work of hoisting, land clearing, earth moving, grading, excavating, trenching, pipe and conduit laying, road and bridge construction, concreting, . . . equipment installation and the structural installation of wood, metal, glass, plastic, masonry and other building materials in any form or for any purpose.”

… “In order to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, a defendant must show that the plaintiff failed to identify a section of the Industrial Code that was allegedly violated, that any such section is insufficiently specific to support liability or is inapplicable to the facts of the case, or that the defendant complied with the requirements of the identified provision” … .

Here, since Lopez was engaged in the installation and furnishing of electrical cables, Kamco failed to establish, prima facie, that Labor Law § 241(6) was inapplicable to Lopez’s activities … . Kamco also failed to establish, prima facie, that 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(a) was inapplicable or that Lopez’s actions were the sole proximate cause of his alleged injuries, as Kamco failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether Lopez was engaged in work that might endanger the eyes, whether approved eye protection was provided to Lopez on the date of the accident, and whether Kamco’s failure to require Lopez to wear safety goggles was a proximate cause of his alleged injuries … . Lopez v Kamco Servs., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 05338, Second Dept 10-30-24

Practice Point: Installing electric cables is construction work covered by Labor Law 241(6).

Practice Point: The Industrial Code provision requiring eye-protection-equipment may apply to plaintiff here who was struck in the eye by an electric cable.

 

PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN UNSECURED LADDER WHEN STRUCK BY FALLING OBJECTS; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff fell from an unsecured ladder when hit by small beams falling from the ceiling:

Plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim. Plaintiff met his prima facia burden by establishing that he was injured when he was hit by 20-to-30-pound small beams falling from the ceiling, causing him to lose balance while standing on an unsecured ladder … , and [defendant’s] evidence in opposition to this claim did not raise a triable issue of fact. Urquia v Deegan 135 Realty LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 05080, First Dept 10-15-24

Practice Point: Losing one’s balance on an unsecured ladder when struck by a falling object makes out a prima facie case under Labor Law 240(1).

 

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