You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law

REPLACING A SPEAKER IN CONJUNCTION WITH INSTALLING PANELING CONSTITUTED ALTERING, ALLEGATION THE LADDER SWAYED SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO SECURE THE LADDER CAUSED THE FALL.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(10 cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff had been hired to install wood paneling. Speakers were removed from wall to install the paneling. Plaintiff was standing on an A-frame ladder, replacing one of the speakers when the ladder swayed and he fell. The Second Department held that plaintiff was engaged in “altering,” a covered activity, and the allegation that the ladder swayed was sufficient to link the fall to a failure of a safety device (failure to secure the ladder):

Although the defendant contends that the act of rehanging a speaker does not constitute the “altering” of a building or structure, “[t]he intent of [Labor Law § 240(1)] was to protect workers employed in the enumerated acts, even while performing duties ancillary to those acts” … . The plaintiff was injured while rehanging a speaker that he and his coworkers had removed to enable them to install the wood paneling and, therefore, we conclude that the plaintiff was injured while performing work that was “ancillary to” a covered activity, entitling him to the protections afforded by Labor Law § 240(1) … . “To myopically focus on a job title or the plaintiff’s activities at the moment of the injury would be to ignore the totality of the circumstances in which the plaintiff and his employer were engaged in contravention of the spirit of the statute which requires a liberal construction in order to accomplish its purpose of protecting workers” … .

Further, the plaintiff established, prima facie, the existence of a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) that was a substantial factor in causing his injuries … . “A fall from a ladder, by itself, is not sufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 240(1). There must be evidence that the subject ladder was defective or inadequately secured and that the defect, or the failure to secure the ladder, was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries” … . Here, the plaintiff’s proof established that the ladder from which he fell was inadequately secured to provide him with proper protection, and that the failure to secure the ladder was a proximate cause of his injuries … . Goodwin v Dix Hills Jewish Ctr., 2016 NY Slip Op 07293, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (REPLACING A SPEAKER IN CONJUNCTION WITH INSTALLING PANELING CONSTITUTED ALTERING, ALLEGATION THE LADDER SWAYED SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO SECURE THE LADDER CAUSED THE FALL)/ALTERING (LABOR LAW 240(1), REPLACING A SPEAKER IN CONJUNCTION WITH INSTALLING PANELLING CONSTITUTED ALTERING, ALLEGATION THE LADDER SWAYED SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO SECURE THE LADDER CAUSED THE FALL)/LADDERS (LABOR LAW 240(1), REPLACING A SPEAKER IN CONJUNCTION WITH INSTALLING PANELLING CONSTITUTED ALTERING, ALLEGATION THE LADDER SWAYED SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO SECURE THE LADDER CAUSED THE FALL)

ELEVATOR NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The First Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) cause of action, which was based upon injury incurred in an elevator, was properly dismissed. Under the circumstances (not explained in the decision) the elevator could not be considered a safety device. Plaintiff’s Labor Law 241(6) cause of action, alleging debris as a slipping hazard, should not have been dismissed:

Dismissal was properly granted with respect to plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action in that plaintiff alleged that he was injured while riding in one of the building’s elevators. In this case, the passenger elevator was not a safety device for protecting a construction worker from a risk posed by elevation as contemplated by Labor Law § 240(1) … .

The court erred, however, in dismissing that portion of plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claim to the extent the claim was predicated on violations of Industrial Code … . While there were no facts alleged to support a claim that plaintiff was injured as the result of a slipping hazard, plaintiff’s complaint, as supplemented by his affidavit in opposition to defendant’s motion, sufficiently alleged that debris was one of the causes of his fall … . Smith v Extell W. 45th St. LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 07089, 1st Dept 10-27-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (ELEVATOR NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED)/ELEVATORS (LABOR LAW, ELEVATOR NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED)

STANDING ON THE TOP STEP OF AN A FRAME LADDER WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE PLAINTIFF’S FALL; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

he First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was injured when he fell descending from the top step of a six-foot A frame ladder. Plaintiff used the six-foot ladder because debris prevented the use of an eight-foot ladder (the eight-foot ladder could not opened due to the debris). Standing on the top step was not the sole proximate cause of the accident:

Denial of summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) was in error where plaintiff electrician was injured when he fell from an A-frame ladder as he was attempting to descend it. Plaintiff’s use of a six-foot ladder that required him to stand on the top step did not make him the sole proximate cause of his accident where the eight-foot ladder could not be opened in the space due to the presence of construction debris … . Defendants’ reliance on the affidavit of the high-rise superintendent is misplaced. Although the superintendent speculated that there was sufficient space to open an eight-foot ladder, this was inconsistent with his prior deposition testimony and was thus calculated to create a feigned issue of fact … .

Nor was plaintiff a recalcitrant worker … . While the site safety manager who worked for a subcontractor of defendants testified that she told plaintiff that he should not work in the room because it was unsafe due to all the debris, she explicitly denied that she directed plaintiff to stop work, explaining that she had no such authority. Saavedra v 89 Park Ave. LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 06974, 1st Dept 10-25-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (STANDING ON THE TOP STEP OF AN A FRAME LADDER WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE PLAINTIFF’S FALL; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/LADDERS (STANDING ON THE TOP STEP OF AN A FRAME LADDER WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE PLAINTIFF’S FALL; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STACKED SCAFFOLDING, WHICH WAS ON THE SAME LEVEL AS PLAINTIFF, CONSTITUTED A “PHYSICALLY SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL,” SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should not have been granted. Plaintiff was severely injured when a row of stacked scaffolding frames fell forward like “dominos.” Whether Labor 240(1) applies depends on whether the scaffolding, which was on the same level as plaintiff, presented a risk related to a significant elevation differential:

… [W]e are unable to glean from the present record whether plaintiff’s injury arose from the requisite “physically significant elevation differential” … . In determining whether an elevation differential is physically significant or de minimis, we must consider not only the height differential itself, but also “the weight of the [falling] object and the amount of force it was capable of generating, even over the course of a relatively short descent” … . Critically absent from the record is any indication as to plaintiff’s height or any other evidence shedding light on the height differential between plaintiff and the stacked frames at the time they fell. Further, issues of fact remain with regard to such other relevant factors as the number of scaffolds stacked in the pile that collapsed, the weight of each scaffold and the manner in which the scaffold(s) struck plaintiff. Given these unresolved factual questions, summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) is not appropriate … . Wright v Ellsworth Partners, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 06927, 3rd Dept 10-20-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STACKED SCAFFOLDING, WHICH WAS ON THE SAME LEVEL AS PLAINTIFF, CONSTITUTED A “PHYSICALLY SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL,” SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL (LABOR LAW 240(1), QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STACKED SCAFFOLDING, WHICH WAS ON THE SAME LEVEL AS PLAINTIFF, CONSTITUTED A “PHYSICALLY SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL,” SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

ACCIDENT CAUSED BY HIGH PRESSURE, NOT GRAVITY; INJURY NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s injury was not the result of the force of gravity and was therefore not covered under Labor Law 240(1):

Plaintiff … was struck by a pipe while it was being flushed clean with a highly pressurized mixture of air, water, and a rubber “rabbit” device. The movement of this mixture through the pipe failed to bring the mechanism of plaintiff’s injury within the ambit of section 240(1) because it did not involve “the direct consequence of the application of the force of gravity to an object” … . The mixture in the pipe did not move through the exercise of the force of gravity, but was rather intentionally propelled through the pipe through the use of high pressure … . Joseph v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 06649, 1st Dept 10-11-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (ACCIDENT CAUSED BY HIGH PRESSURE, NOT GRAVITY; INJURY NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1))/GRAVITY (LABOR LAW, ACCIDENT CAUSED BY HIGH PRESSURE, NOT GRAVITY; INJURY NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1))

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF FELL 13 OR 14 FEET FROM THE BACK OF A FLATBED TRUCK.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action stemming from a fall of 13 to 14 feet from the back of a flatbed truck. Plaintiff was standing on top of steel beams, securing the beams with a cable (to be hoisted by crane off the truck), when he fell. The dissent argued plaintiff did not demonstrate he could have been provided with any kind of safety equipment which would have prevented the fall. Plaintiff was wearing a safety harness, but the harness was not tied off:

The motion court correctly determined that defendants, other than Metropolitan Steel, were liable under Labor Law § 240(1) for plaintiff’s injuries because they failed to provide plaintiff with an adequate safety device to prevent his fall from steel beams placed on a flatbed trailer. … [D]efendants’ contention that the accident is outside the scope of Labor Law § 240(1) is without merit, because plaintiff’s fall from a height of 13 or 14 feet above the ground “constitutes precisely the type of elevation-related risk envisioned by the statute” … . The fact that plaintiff did not ask for a specific safety device prior to the accident is not dispositive and is not a prerequisite for recovery under Labor Law § 240(1) … . Plaintiff has met his burden of showing that his fall resulted from the lack of a safety device and is, therefore, entitled to summary judgment on liability (see Phillip v 525 E. 80th St. Condominium, 93 AD3d 578, 579 [1st Dept 2012] [the plaintiff entitled to summary judgment where evidence showed that the plaintiff, who fell while unloading scaffolding material from the flatbed of a truck, was provided with a safety harness, but there was no place where the harness could be secured]). Myiow v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 06461, 1st Dept 10-4-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF FELL 13 OR 14 FEET FROM THE BACK OF A FLATBED TRUCK)/FLATBED TRUCK (LABOR LAW, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF FELL 13 OR 14 FEET FROM THE BACK OF A FLATBED TRUCK)

, ,

PROPERTY OWNER’S [EMPLOYER’S] COMMON LAW DUTY TO PROVIDE SAFE PLACE TO WORK NOT TRIGGERED BY INJURY WHEN DRAWING UP AN ESTIMATE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property-owner was not entitled to summary judgment. Plaintiff was on the property to provide an estimate of the cost of repair of defendant’s porch when the porch collapsed. Defendant argued she could not be liable because the injury occurred when plaintiff was doing work he was hired to do. However, the plaintiff had not been hired to repair the porch:

Employers have a common-law duty to provide their employees with a safe place to work … . The duty, however, does not extend to hazards that are part of, or inherent in, the very work the employee is to perform or defects the employee is hired to repair … . Here, the defendant failed to establish her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as the evidence submitted in support of her motion showed that the plaintiff merely went to the premises to prepare an estimate to repair the back porch. The plaintiff had not been hired to repair the back porch and he was not engaged in any repair work when the incident allegedly occurred… . Arcabascio v Bentivegna, 2016 NY Slip Op 06187, 2nd Dept 9-28-16

NEGLIGENCE (PROPERTY OWNER’S [EMPLOYER’S] COMMON LAW DUTY TO PROVIDE SAFE PLACE TO WORK NOT TRIGGERED BY INJURY WHEN PROVIDING AN ESTIMATE)/LABOR-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PROPERTY OWNER’S [EMPLOYER’S] COMMON LAW DUTY TO PROVIDE SAFE PLACE TO WORK NOT TRIGGERED BY INJURY WHEN PROVIDING AN ESTIMATE)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (PROPERTY OWNER’S [EMPLOYER’S] COMMON LAW DUTY TO PROVIDE SAFE PLACE TO WORK NOT TRIGGERED BY INJURY WHEN PROVIDING AN ESTIMATE)

FALLING SHEETROCK DID NOT SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action, alleging injury from a falling piece of sheetrock, was properly granted. The sheetrock in question was stored against a wall and was not being hoisted at the time of the incident. [The extensive decision demonstrates the complexity of Labor Law actions as it addresses Labor Law 241(6) and Labor Law 200 causes of action, indemnification issues and the liability of agents and general contractors.] With respect to the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action, the court wrote:

“In order to prevail on summary judgment in a section 240(1) falling object’ case, the injured worker must demonstrate the existence of a hazard contemplated under that statute and the failure to use, or the inadequacy of, a safety device of the kind enumerated therein'” … . “Essentially, the plaintiff must demonstrate that at the time the object fell, it either was being hoisted or secured, or required securing for the purposes of the undertaking” … . “[F]or section 240 (1) to apply, a plaintiff must show more than simply that an object fell causing injury to a worker. A plaintiff must show that the object fell . . . because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute” … .

However, Labor Law § 240(1) “does not apply in situations in which a hoisting or securing device of the type enumerated in the statute would not be necessary or expected” … . Here, the sheetrock, which was being stored against a wall, was not a material being hoisted or a load that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking at the time it fell … , nor was it expected, under the circumstances of this case, that the sheetrock would require securing for the purposes of the undertaking at the time it fell … . Seales v Trident Structural Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 06204, 2nd Dept 9-28-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FALLING SHEETROCK DID NOT SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION)/FALLING OBJECTIONS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, FALLING SHEETROCK DID NOT SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION)

,

PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGEDLY INCONSISTENT ACCOUNTS OF THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT.

The First Department, with a two-justice concurring memorandum, determined conflicting testimony raised questions of fact about whether a safety harness was available and whether the scaffold was defective. Plaintiff was not wearing a harness when he attempted to move from the roof to a scaffold and fell. With respect to the scaffold, the court noted that plaintiff’s allegedly inconsistent accounts of the cause of the fall raised a question of fact:

According to plaintiff, as he attempted to swing down from the roof to the scaffold, a wire attaching the scaffold to the building snapped, causing the scaffold to swing away from the wall and resulting in plaintiff’s fall to the ground below. The foreman, however, testified that, in conversation after the accident, plaintiff had admitted to him that he fell because his foot had slipped as he stepped onto the scaffold from the roof, without mentioning any movement of the scaffold. These two versions of how the accident happened, each given by plaintiff, the sole witness to the incident, are inconsistent with each other and give rise to an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff’s fall was caused by a failure of a safety device within the purview of § 240(1). As this Court recently noted, “[W]here a plaintiff is the sole witness to an accident, an issue of fact may exist where he or she provides inconsistent accounts of the accident” … . Albino v 221-223 W. 82 Owners Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 05953, 1st Dept 9-8-16

LABOR LAW (PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGEDLY INCONSISTENT ACCOUNTS OF THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT)/EVIDENCE (LABOR LAW, PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGEDLY INCONSISTENT ACCOUNTS OF THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT)

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE ON HIS LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION, THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS PREMATURE; PLAINTIFF NOT YET DEPOSED.

The Second Department determined summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) action should not have been awarded to plaintiff. Although plaintiff had made out a prima facie case against defendant YAM, the motion was premature in that plaintiff had not yet been deposed:

… [T]he plaintiff made a prima facie showing that YAM failed to provide him with adequate safety devices, as required by Labor Law § 240(1), and that this violation of the statute was a proximate cause of the accident … . The plaintiff also made a prima facie showing that he was injured while he was engaged in an activity covered under Labor Law § 241(6), that there was a violation of an applicable provision of the Industrial Code, and that the violation was a proximate cause of the accident … .

Nonetheless, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) insofar as asserted against YAM was premature since there has been almost no discovery in the case and the plaintiff has not been deposed. In the absence of such discovery, YAM’s ability to defend is impaired, since it is limited to the plaintiff’s own unchallenged account of the accident, set forth in the affidavit he submitted in support of his motion for summary judgment, and YAM has not had an opportunity to explore potential defenses … . Churaman v C&B Elec., Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 05703, 2nd Dept 8-3-16

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE ON HIS LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION, THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS PREMATURE; PLAINTIFF NOT YET DEPOSED)/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE ON HIS LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION, THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS PREMATURE; PLAINTIFF NOT YET DEPOSED)/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE ON HIS LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION, THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS PREMATURE; PLAINTIFF NOT YET DEPOSED)

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