You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law
, ,

FALL FROM SCAFFOLD WITH NO SIDE RAILS ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT PROPERLY CONSIDERED.

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, EVIDENCE.

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff fell from a Baker’s scaffold that had no side rails. Although hearsay can be submitted in opposition to a summary judgment motion, the motion will not be defeated by hearsay alone (the case here). The court noted that the plaintiff’s unsigned deposition transcript was properly considered because it was certified by the reporter, its accuracy was not challenged by the defendant, and plaintiff adopted it as accurate by submitting it:

Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim where he fell from a six-foot-high Baker’s scaffold, which he was directed to use in order to plaster a ceiling. The record shows that the scaffold “had no side rails, and no other protective device was provided to protect him from falling off the sides” … . …

… [T]he statement in the affidavit of [defendant’s] owner that a subcontractor had assured him that the subcontractor had instructed all his employees to use the lifeline, belt and harness is insufficient raise a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff may be the sole proximate cause for disregarding such an instruction … . While hearsay may be considered in opposition to defeat a summary judgment motion if it is not the only evidence upon which opposition to the motion is predicated, because it was the only evidence establishing that plaintiff disregarded an instruction to use the safety devices, it is insufficient to defeat plaintiff’s motion … . Chong v 457 W. 22nd St. Tenants Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 07997, 1st Dept 11-29-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FALL FROM SCAFFOLD WITH NO SIDE RAILS ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT PROPERLY CONSIDERED)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT PROPERLY CONSIDERED)/EVIDENCE (HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT PROPERLY CONSIDERED)/SCAFFOLDS (FALL FROM SCAFFOLD WITH NO SIDE RAILS ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT PROPERLY CONSIDERED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, UNSIGNED DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT PROPERLY CONSIDERED)

SCAFFOLD DID NOT HAVE A SAFETY RAILING, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The First Department determined plaintiff was properly awarded summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) action. Plaintiff fell from a scaffold which did not have safety railings. Any comparative negligence on plaintiff’s part (not locking the wheels) was irrelevant:

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim by presenting undisputed evidence that he “fell off a scaffold without guardrails that would have prevented his fall” … . Plaintiff’s alleged “failure to use the locking wheel devices and his movement of the scaffold while standing on it” were at most comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . Celaj v Cornell, 2016 NY Slip Op 07996, 1st Dept 11-29-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (SCAFFOLD DID NOT HAVE A SAFETY RAILING, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION)/SCAFFOLDS (SCAFFOLD DID NOT HAVE A SAFETY RAILING, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION)

PLAINTIFF WHO FELL FROM A-FRAME LADDER AFTER AN ELECTRICAL SHOCK NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The Court of Appeals, reversing (modifying) the Appellate Division, determined plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Defendant fell from an A-frame ladder after receiving an electrical shock:

Plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1). While using an A-frame ladder, plaintiff fell after receiving an electrical shock. Questions of fact exist as to whether the ladder failed to provide proper protection, and whether plaintiff should have been provided with additional safety devices … . Nazario v 222 Broadway, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 07823, CtApp 11-21-16

LABOR LAW (PLAINTIFF WHO FELL FROM A-FRAME LADDER AFTER AN ELECTRICAL SHOCK NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION)/LADDERS (LABOR LAW, PLAINTIFF WHO FELL FROM A-FRAME LADDER AFTER AN ELECTRICAL SHOCK NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION)

FALL OFF BACK OF FLATBED TRUCK WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff was knocked off the back of a flatbed truck. The Labor Law 241(6) cause of action was properly dismissed (no sufficiently specific industrial code regulation applied). And defendants’ control over the injury-producing work was insufficient to support the Labor Law 200 cause of action:

The injured plaintiff testified that a metal beam, while being placed on a flatbed truck, fell off the blades of a forklift, slamming plaintiff’s foot and causing him to fall off the truck. This unrefuted testimony established prima facie that “plaintiff’s injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential” and therefore that liability exists under Labor Law § 240(1) … . The cases that defendants rely on are inapposite, since they involve not objects falling on or toward workers on flatbeds but workers falling from flatbeds, implicating only the adequacy of safety devices for falling workers, which is not at issue here … .

Nor was plaintiff the sole proximate cause of his injuries since the injuries “were caused at least in part by the lack of safety devices to check the beam’s descent as well as the manner in which [his coworker] lowered the beam” … . McLean v Tishman Constr. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 07754, 1st Dept 11-17-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FALL OFF BACK OF FLATBED TRUCK WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION)/FLATBED TRUCK (LABOR LAW, (FALL OFF BACK OF FLATBED TRUCK WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION)

,

MAKESHIFT TABLE SAW, MADE FROM A PORTABLE SAW, SUBJECT TO INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING GUARDS ON TABLE SAWS, UNTIMELY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION BASED ON GROUNDS IDENTICAL TO A TIMELY MOTION BROUGHT BY ANOTHER PARTY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action should not have been dismissed. Although the specific Industrial Code regulation relied upon by plaintiff was not identified in the pleadings no prejudice resulted from any delay in identifying it. Plaintiff’s thumb was severed using a makeshift table saw consisting of a circular saw attached to the bottom of a table. Supreme Court held the Industrial Code regulation requiring a guard on a table saw did not apply to a portable saw. However, the portable saw was being used as a table saw, thus the regulation applied. The Second Department also noted that an otherwise untimely motion or cross motion for summary judgment should be considered if the issues raised are identical to a timely summary judgment motion made by another party. Here portions of the untimely motion were identical to the timely motion, but other portions were not. The identical portions should have been considered:

12 NYCRR 23-1.12(c)(2) requires that “[e]very power-driven saw, other than a portable saw, . . . be equipped with a guard which covers the saw blade to such an extent as will prevent contact with the teeth.” The Supreme Court incorrectly concluded that this provision was inapplicable to the facts of this case because it applies to table saws, not portable saws. “[W]hen determining the applicability of a regulation,” the court must “take into consideration the function of a piece of equipment, and not merely the name” … . The circular saw at issue was being used as a table saw at the time of the plaintiff’s accident, and, thus, the same safety precautions as are required for other power-driven table saws are applicable … . Accordingly, the branch of [defendant’s] motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action insofar as asserted against him should have been denied. …

Although [defendant’s] cross motion was untimely, an untimely motion or cross motion for summary judgment may be considered by the court where a timely motion for summary judgment was made on nearly identical grounds … . The branch of [defendant’s] cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action insofar as asserted against it was not made on grounds nearly identical to the similar branch of [the] timely motion, since it rested on the separate factual assertion that it did not exercise supervisory control over the work. Sheng Hai Tong v K & K 7619, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 07637, 2nd Dept 11-16-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (MAKESHIFT TABLE SAW, MADE FROM A PORTABLE SAW, SUBJECT TO INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING GUARDS ON TABLE SAWS)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (UNTIMELY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION BASED ON GROUNDS IDENTICAL TO A TIMELY MOTION BROUGHT BY ANOTHER PARTY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT, MOTIONS FOR (UNTIMELY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION BASED ON GROUNDS IDENTICAL TO A TIMELY MOTION BROUGHT BY ANOTHER PARTY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED)/TABLE SAWS (LABOR LAW, MAKESHIFT TABLE SAW, MADE FROM A PORTABLE SAW, SUBJECT TO INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING GUARDS ON TABLE SAWS)

FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROPER PROTECTION.

The Second Department determined summary judgment should not have been granted to plaintiff on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff fell from a scaffold but his papers did not make out a prima facie case:

To establish liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must show that the statute was violated, and that the violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries … . The mere fact that a plaintiff fell from a scaffold ” does not establish, in and of itself, that proper protection was not provided, and the issue of whether a particular safety device provided proper protection is generally a question of fact for the jury'” … . Here, the plaintiff’s own submissions demonstrated the existence of triable issues of fact as to how the accident occurred and it cannot be concluded, as a matter of law, that the alleged failure to provide him with protection proximately caused his injuries … . Karwowski v Grolier Club of City of N.Y., 2016 NY Slip Op 07625, 2nd Dept 11-16-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROPER PROTECTION)/SCAFFOLDS (FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROPER PROTECTION)

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HIS FAILURE TO USE A LADDER WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS.

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion papers in the Labor Law 240(1) action raised a triable issue of fact whether his failure to use an available ladder was the sole proximate cause of his fall from a wall. Plaintiff’s motion must therefore be denied without any need to consider the opposing papers:

Liability under section 240 (1) does not attach when the safety devices that [the] plaintiff alleges were absent were readily available at the work site, albeit not in the immediate vicinity of the accident, and [the] plaintiff knew he [or she] was expected to use them but for no good reason chose not to do so, causing an accident” … . Under those circumstances, the “plaintiff’s own negligence is the sole proximate cause of his [or her] injury” … .

Where the plaintiff’s submissions in support of the motion raise a triable issue of fact whether his or her own actions were the sole proximate cause of the injury, the plaintiff has failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability because “if the plaintiff is solely to blame for the injury, it necessarily means that there has been no statutory violation” … . In this case, plaintiff’s submissions raised triable issues of fact whether plaintiff knew that he was expected to use a readily available ladder at the work site to perform his task, but for no good reason chose not to do so, and whether he would not have been injured had he not made that choice … . Scruton v Acro-Fab Ltd., 2016 NY Slip Op 07428, 4th Dept 11-10-16

 

LABOR LAW (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HIS FAILURE TO USE A LADDER WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS)/SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE (LABOR LAW 240(1), PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HIS FAILURE TO USE A LADDER WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS)/LADDERS (LABOR LAW 240(1), PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HIS FAILURE TO USE A LADDER WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS)

A TWO-FOOT DEEP TRENCH WAS NOT AN ELEVATION HAZARD OR A HAZARDOUS OPENING.

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action. Plaintiff alleged he was pulled into a two-foot deep trench while holding a cable. The court held the hazard was not “elevation-related” and the two-foot deep trench was not a “hazardous opening:”

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff’s alleged injuries were not caused by the elevation or gravity-related hazards encompassed by Labor Law § 240(1) … . …

… [T]he defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) by demonstrating, inter alia, that 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1), which is the only Industrial Code provision upon which the plaintiff presently relies, is inapplicable to the facts of this case. That provision provides, in pertinent part, that “[e]very hazardous opening into which a person may step or fall shall be guarded by a substantial cover fastened in place or by a safety railing” (12 NYCRR 23-1.7[b][1][i]). Although this provision is sufficiently specific to support a cause of action under Labor Law § 241(6) … , the trench in this particular case, which was only two feet deep, is not a hazardous opening within the meaning of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1) … . Palumbo v Transit Tech., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 07305, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (A TWO-FOOT DEEP TRENCH WAS NOT AN ELEVATION HAZARD OR A HAZARDOUS OPENING)

FALL WHEN DESCENDING A 28-FOOT LADDER ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, APPARENTLY A 40-FOOT LADDER WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFER BUT NONE WAS AVAILABLE, THEREFORE USE OF THE SHORTER LADDER COULD NOT BE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY.

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff fell when he attempted to descend a 28-foot ladder. Apparently a 40-foot ladder would have been safer, but there was no showing a 40-foot ladder was available. Therefore plaintiff’s use of a 28-foot ladder could not be the sole proximate cause of his injury:

… [T]he plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by demonstrating that he was injured when he fell while descending an unsecured, 28-foot ladder, and that he was not provided with a safety device to prevent him from falling … . Contrary to Halsted’s (defendant’s) contention, it failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s decision to use a 28-foot ladder, rather than a 40-foot ladder, was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The record reveals that there were no 40-foot ladders readily available to the plaintiff on the date of his accident, and that a Halsted employee nevertheless instructed the plaintiff that he was required to complete his job, or be fired. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff’s use of the 28-foot ladder cannot be said to be the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . Pacheco v Halsted Communications, Ltd., 2016 NY Slip Op 07303, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FALL WHEN DESCENDING A 28-FOOT LADDER ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, APPARENTLY A 40-FOOT LADDER WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFER BUT NONE WAS AVAILABLE, THEREFORE USE OF THE SHORTER LADDER COULD NOT BE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY)/LADDERS (FALL WHEN DESCENDING A 28-FOOT LADDER ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, APPARENTLY A 40-FOOT LADDER WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFER BUT NONE WAS AVAILABLE, THEREFORE USE OF THE SHORTER LADDER COULD NOT BE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY)/SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE (LABOR LAW, FALL WHEN DESCENDING A 28-FOOT LADDER ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, APPARENTLY A 40-FOOT LADDER WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFER BUT NONE WAS AVAILABLE, THEREFORE USE OF THE SHORTER LADDER COULD NOT BE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY)

REPAIR OF AN AIR CONDITIONER WAS NOT A PROTECTED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 246(1), LADDER WAS NOT DEFECTIVE AND DEFENDANT DID NOT CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THEREFORE NO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200(1) AS WELL.

The Second Department determined defendant (Nickel) was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law 200(1), 246(1) and 240(1) causes of action. Plaintiff was injured when he fell of a ladder while attempting to fix an air conditioner which had stopped running. Plaintiff was not engaged in a protected activity under Labor Law 240(1) or 246(1). The Labor Law 200(1) cause of action was properly dismissed because defendant did not control the manner of plaintiff’s work:

Nickel submitted evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff was not engaged in an enumerated activity protected under Labor Law § 240(1) at the time of his accident. Furthermore, Nickel submitted evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s accident did not involve construction, demolition, or excavation and, accordingly, that Labor Law § 241(6) does not apply. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Supreme Court properly granted that branch of Nickel’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action insofar as asserted against it, albeit for a different reason. Nickel established, prima facie, that the ladder was not defective, and the plaintiff conceded that fact. Thus, the potential liability of Nickel, contrary to the Supreme Court’s finding, was not based on its actual or constructive notice of any dangerous or defective condition of the ladder … . Instead, the plaintiff allegedly was injured as a result of the manner in which he performed his work. Accordingly, recovery against Nickel under Labor Law § 200 or under the common law may only be found if Nickel had the authority to supervise or control the performance of the work … . Nickel established, prima facie, that it did not have authority to exercise supervision or control over the means and methods of the plaintiff’s work. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Mammone v T.G. Nickel & Assoc., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 07300, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (REPAIR OF AN AIR CONDITIONER WAS NOT A PROTECTED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 246(1), LADDER WAS NOT DEFECTIVE AND DEFENDANT DID NOT CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THEREFORE NO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200(1) AS WELL)/LADDERS  (REPAIR OF AN AIR CONDITIONER WAS NOT A PROTECTED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 246(1), LADDER WAS NOT DEFECTIVE AND DEFENDANT DID NOT CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THEREFORE NO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200(1) AS WELL)

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