You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law

PLAINTIFF INJURED BY A PORTION OF A ROOF WHICH FELL ON HIM UNEXPECTEDLY WHEN ANOTHER PORTION OF THE ROOF WAS BEING DEMOLISHED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, PROPERTY MANAGER COULD BE LIABLE AS AGENT OF OWNER.

The First Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly denied. Plaintiff was injured when a portion of a roof fell on him unexpectedly when another portion of the roof was being demolished. The court further determined the property manager could be held liable as the agent of the owner:

Since that part of the roof above plaintiff was not the intended target of demolition at the time of the collapse, Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action … .

Furthermore, defendant Gibraltar Management Co., Inc. was the manager of the property, which handled all activities related to its management and contracted with RA Lynch Excavating for the demolition of the building. Accordingly, it may be held liable as an agent of the owner pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6) … . Ragubir v Gibraltar Mgt. Co., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 00265, 1st Dept 1-17-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF INJURED WHEN A PORTION OF A ROOF FELL ON HIM UNEXPECTEDLY WHEN ANOTHER PORTION OF THE ROOF WAS BEING DEMOLISHED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED)/DEMOLITION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW,  (PLAINTIFF INJURED WHEN A PORTION OF A ROOF FELL ON HIM UNEXPECTEDLY WHEN ANOTHER PORTION OF THE ROOF WAS BEING DEMOLISHED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED)/AGENT (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PROPERTY MANAGER COULD BE LIABLE AS AGENT OF OWNER)/PROPERTY MANAGER (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PROPERTY MANAGE COULD BE LIABLE AS AGENT OF OWNER)

,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SITE SAFETY CONSULTANT EXERCISED SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200.

The First Department determined there was a question of fact whether defendant site safety consultant exercised sufficient supervisory control to support the Labor Law 200 cause of action:

The motion court properly found a material question of fact as to whether ELI, the site safety consultant employed by plaintiff[‘s] … employer, had supervisory control and authority over the work being done when plaintiff was injured, and can be held liable for plaintiff’s injuries under the Labor Law as an agent of the owner or general contractor. …  ELI’s principal testified that the responsibility of a site safety consultant was to consult with and make recommendations to the foreman, project manager or superintendent should he or she observe a potentially unsafe condition. However, the agreement under which ELI performed its services for plaintiff’s employer … provided that the site safety consultant, in addition to making inspections of the work place to ascertain a safe operating environment, was to “[t]ake necessary and timely corrective actions to eliminate all unsafe acts and/or conditions,” and “[p]erform all related tasks necessary to achieve the highest degree of safety.”  Oliveri v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 00237, 1st Dept 1-12-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SITE SAFETY CONSULTANT EXERCISED SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200)/EVIDENCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SITE SAFETY CONSULTANT EXERCISED SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200)/SAFETY CONSULTANT (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SITE SAFETY CONSULTANT EXERCISED SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200)

LADDER SHIFTED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should have been granted summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff fell when a wooden ladder which was part of the structure of the building (for access to the attic) shifted when he attempted to step onto it:

Plaintiff’s testimony that the ladder shifted as he descended, thus causing his fall, established a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240(1) … . The affidavit submitted by defendant averring that plaintiff had told his employer that he fell when attempting to descend the ladder using one hand as he carried tools or equipment in the other and missed a rung with his free hand, failed to refute plaintiff’s testimony that the ladder shifted and failed to create triable issues of fact that plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident. Plaintiff also denies making the statement.

Further, we reject defendant’s contention that issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiff may be the sole proximate cause of the accident for failing to use the ladder, safety harness and rope provided by his employer. While the vice-president of plaintiff’s employer stated in an affidavit that safety harnesses and other safety devices were available to plaintiff, the affidavit was vague as to what other unspecified safety devices were available, to what plaintiff should have attached the harness, or whether there were any available anchorage points … . Defendant further fails to explain how a rope that was used to hoist materials to the attic area where plaintiff was working could be used as a safety device, and plaintiff’s decision to use the ladder already in place cannot be the sole proximate cause of his accident where he was never instructed not to use it … . Garcia v Church of St. Joseph of the Holy Family of the City of N.Y., 2017 NY Slip Op 00239, 1st Dept 1-12-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (LADDER SHIFTED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, LADDER SHIFTED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, LADDER SHIFTED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

,

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, UNCERTIFIED DOCUMENTS IN OPPOSITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff alleged he fell from an unsecured ladder while attempting to move to a baker’s scaffold. Unverified documents contesting plaintiff’s allegations were not sufficient to defeat summary judgment:

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240(1), through his affidavit stating that he was not provided with any safety equipment that could have protected him while performing his work alone on the ladder and scaffold … . Once it is determined that the owner or contractor failed to provide the necessary safety devices required to give a worker “proper protection,” absolute liability is inescapable under Labor Law § 240(1) … . Thus, in opposition, defendants were required to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of a material issue of fact to preclude summary judgment … . * * *

Records without proper certification may be considered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, but only when they are not the sole basis for the court’s determination … . Here, the unverified documents and unsworn statement are the only evidence to challenge details of plaintiff’s version of the accident and therefore should not be considered. Erkan v McDonald’s Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 00099, 1st Dept 1-10-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, UNCERTIFIED DOCUMENTS IN OPPOSITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED)/EVIDENCE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, UNCERTIFIED DOCUMENTS IN OPPOSITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (EVIDENCE, UMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, UNCERTIFIED DOCUMENTS IN OPPOSITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED)

DEFENDANT CON EDISION EXERCISED SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK TO SUPPORT THE LABOR LAW 200 VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined defendant Con Edison’s motion to set aside the verdict in this asbestos-injury case should not have been granted. Con Edison was deemed to have sufficient control over the manner of plaintiff’s work (applying concrete mixed with asbestos) to support the Labor Law 200 cause of action:

The evidence at trial demonstrated that Con Edison had the “authority to control the activity bringing about the injury” … . “[A]n implicit precondition to this duty is that the party to be charged with that obligation have the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury to enable it to avoid or correct an unsafe condition” … . * * *

Con Edison had the ability to prevent the hazard ultimately causing the plaintiff’s injury, namely, the application of asbestos-containing materials. Indeed, Con Edison’s specifications affirmatively required the use of hazardous asbestos-containing insulation materials, and Con Edison monitored work for compliance with those specifications. Matter of New York Asbestos Litig., 2017 NY Slip Op 00098, 1st Dept 1-10-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (DEFENDANT CON EDISION EXERCISED SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK TO SUPPORT THE LABOR LAW 200 VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED)

FAILURE TO TIE OFF HARNESS WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF KNEW OF A SAFE PLACE TO TIE OFF, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION.

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on both his Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action. Defendants argued that plaintiff’s failure to tie off a harness was the sole proximate cause for the accident (a fall from an elevated platform). The First Department found that defendants did not demonstrate plaintiff had been instructed where to tie off, and did not demonstrate plaintiff knew where to tie off:

Plaintiff established prima facie that while subjected to an elevation-related risk, he was injured due to defendants’ failure to provide him with proper fall protection, namely, an appropriate place to which to attach his harness. Anderson v MSG Holdings, L.P., 2017 NY Slip Op 00002, 1st Dept 1-3-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTIO LAW (FAILURE TO TIE OFF HARNESS WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF KNEW OF A SAFE PLACE TO TIE OFF, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION)/HARNESS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, FAILURE TO TIE OFF HARNESS WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF KNEW OF A SAFE PLACE TO TIE OFF, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION)

FALL ON THE SURFACE OF SCAFFOLDING NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1), OVERSIGHT OF SITE SAFETY NOT ENOUGH FOR LABOR LAW 200 LIABILITY, SLIP AND FALL ON DUST ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 241(6) cause of action. Plaintiff slipped on accumulated dust and fell to the scaffolding surface (he did not fall off the scaffolding). The Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly dismissed because the fall was not related to the failure to provide a safety device. The Labor Law 200 cause of action was properly dismissed because the defendant’s general oversight of the worksite did not amount to supervisory control over the means or methods of plaintiff’s work:

The Labor Law § 240(1) claim was correctly dismissed since plaintiff’s injuries “result[ed] from a separate hazard wholly unrelated to the danger that brought about the need for the safety device[s] in the first instance” … . Plaintiff does not point to any evidence that he was injured as a result of any attempts to avoid falling off the scaffold … . The accumulation of paint chips and dust on the platform on which plaintiff was working “was one of the usual and ordinary dangers at a construction site[,] to which the extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240(1) [do not] extend” … .

The Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims were correctly dismissed since the evidence that defendant’s safety officer instructed plaintiff and his coworkers on safety rules, exercised general oversight over site safety, and conducted site walk-throughs does not establish that defendant exercised supervisory control over the means or methods of plaintiff’s work … . Serrano v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 00003, 1st Dept 1-3-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FALL ON THE SURFACE OF SCAFFOLDING NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1), OVERSIGHT OF SITE SAFETY NOT ENOUGH FOR LABOR LAW 200 LIABILITY, SLIP AND FALL ON DUST ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION)/DUST (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, SLIP AND FALL ON DUST ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION)

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PROVIDED WITH A DEFECTIVE LADDER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LADDER WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION CREATED BY DEFENDANT OR OF WHICH DEFENDANT HAD NOTICE, LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 200 claims should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged defendant provided him with a defective ladder (proper footing missing) and he was injured when the ladder slipped from under him. The court explained that the proper analysis, where the accident did not arise from the means or methods of work, is whether defendant created or had notice of the dangerous condition:

Where, as here, plaintiff alleged that defendants — the premises owners — provided him with the defective ladder, “the legal standard that governs claims under Labor Law § 200 is whether the owner created the dangerous or defective condition or had actual or constructive notice thereof,” not whether the accident arose out of the means and methods of plaintiff’s work … .

The conflicting deposition testimony submitted by the parties shows that there is a triable issue as to whether defendants provided plaintiff with the allegedly defective ladder. Moreover, plaintiff’s testimony that the ladder was missing its feet was sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether defendants had constructive notice of the defect because of its visible and apparent nature … . Jaycoxe v VNO Bruckner Plaza, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 00012, 1st Dept 1-3-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PROVIDED WITH A DEFECTIVE LADDER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LADDER WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION CREATED BY DEFENDANT OR OF WHICH DEFENDANT HAD NOTICE, LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PROVIDED WITH A DEFECTIVE LADDER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LADDER WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION CREATED BY DEFENDANT OR OF WHICH DEFENDANT HAD NOTICE, LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED)

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON A DEFECTIVE LADDER, BUT NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT.

The Second Department determined plaintiff, who alleged a defective stepladder was the cause of his fall, was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action (comparative negligence is not a factor). However, plaintiff should not have been awarded summary judgment on his Labor Law 241(6) cause action (alleging a violation of the industrial code) because plaintiff did not demonstrate his freedom from comparative negligence:

The plaintiff established, prima facie, that the defendant violated Labor Law § 240(1), as the owner of the building where the plaintiff was working, by providing a ladder with a defective supporting bracket, which caused the ladder to move and the plaintiff to fall to the ground … . The fact that the plaintiff may have been the sole witness to the accident does not preclude the award of summary judgment in his favor … . …

However, the plaintiff failed to establish, prima facie, the defendant’s liability under Labor Law § 241(6). Although the evidence demonstrated that the ladder’s defective supporting bracket, which the plaintiff had complained about prior to the accident, constituted a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.21(b)(3) … , the plaintiff failed to demonstrate his freedom from comparative negligence … . Cardenas v 111-127 Cabrini Apts. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 08835, 2nd Dept 12-28-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON A DEFECTIVE LADDER, BUT NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT)/COMPARATIVE FAULT (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON A DEFECTIVE LADDER, BUT NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT)/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON A DEFECTIVE LADDER, BUT NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT)

HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL DEEMED DE MINIMUS AND NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), PIPE WHICH FELL WAS ONE FOOT ABOVE PLAINTIFF’S HEAD AND WITHIN HIS REACH.

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly dismissed. Plaintiff was working in the basement when a pipe, which was one foot above him and was within his reach, fell and injured him. The majority found the height differential “de minimus” and therefore not actionable:

“Liability may . . . be imposed under [Labor Law § 240 (1)] only where the plaintiff’s injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential’ ” … . Although there is conflicting deposition testimony concerning the exact elevation of the pipe, it is undisputed that the pipe was, at most, one foot above plaintiff’s head, and that the pipe was always within his reach. We therefore conclude that plaintiff’s injury did not fall within the scope of section 240 (1) inasmuch as “any height differential between plaintiff and the [pipe] that fell on him was de minimis” … . Kuhn v Giovanniello, 2016 NY Slip Op 08633, 4th Dept 12-23-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL DEEMED DE MINIMUS AND NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), PIPE WHICH FELL WAS ONE FOOT ABOVE PLAINTIFF’S HEAD AND WITHIN HIS REACH)/DE MINIMUS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL DEEMED DE MINIMUS AND NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), PIPE WHICH FELL WAS ONE FOOT ABOVE PLAINTIFF’S HEAD AND WITHIN HIS REACH)/HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL DEEMED DE MINIMUS AND NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), PIPE WHICH FELL WAS ONE FOOT ABOVE PLAINTIFF’S HEAD AND WITHIN HIS REACH)

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