You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law

PLAINTIFF’S ACT OF CLIMBING A FENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT FOR LOCKING PLAINTIFF INSIDE WORK SITE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been awarded to defendant on a Labor Law 200 cause of action alleging a dangerous condition. Plaintiff was locked inside the work site (a stadium) and was injured when climbing over a six-foot fence. Supreme Court erred when it determined, as a matter of law, that plaintiff's act of climbing the fence was the sole proximate cause of the injury:

“Defendants are liable for all normal and foreseeable consequences of their acts,” and the plaintiffs “need not demonstrate that the precise manner in which the accident happened or the injuries occurred was foreseeable” … . “An intervening act constitutes a superseding cause sufficient to relieve a defendant of liability if it is extraordinary under the circumstances, not foreseeable in the normal course of events, or independent of or far removed from the defendant's conduct'” … . However, when the intervening act is a natural and foreseeable consequence of a circumstance created by the defendant, the causal nexus is not severed and liability will subsist … . Whether an act is foreseeable is generally for the trier of fact … . Summary judgment is appropriate “where only one conclusion may be drawn from the established facts” … . Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs … we find that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether [plaintiff's] act in scaling the fence was a natural and foreseeable response to a condition allegedly created by the defendant's negligence … . Niewojt v Nikko Constr. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 04030, 2nd Dept 5-25-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF'S ACT OF CLIMBING A FENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT FOR LOCKING PLAINTIFF INSIDE WORK SITE)/NEGLIGENCE (LABOR LAW 200, PLAINTIFF'S ACT OF CLIMBING A FENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY AS A MATTER OF LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT FOR LOCKING PLAINTIFF INSIDE WORK SITE)

FIXING A LEAKY ROOF NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS.

The First Department determined defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly denied. Plaintiff climbed up a permanent ladder to fix a roof leak. The ladder was wet with rain, shaky and too close to the wall. Plaintiff fell when he attempted to come back down the ladder from the roof:

… [D]efendant [is not] entitled to dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim. Plaintiff was engaged in repairing the roof, an activity to which Labor Law § 240(1) applies, and not merely in routine maintenance … . Moreover, the permanently affixed ladder that provided the sole access to plaintiff's elevated work site was a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … . In view of plaintiff's testimony that the ladder shook and was wet and was too close to the wall to allow room for his feet on the rungs, defendant failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that plaintiff was provided with proper protection. Kolenovic v 56th Realty, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 04005, 1st Dept 5-24-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FIXING A LEAKY ROOF NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, PLAINTIFF'S LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)

REMOVING A CRATE FROM A FLATBED TRUCK WAS AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1).

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 attempting to maneuver a 1500-pound crate to a sling for removal from a flatbed truck when it fell over on him:

… [ P]reparing a six-foot-tall crate weighing at least 1,500 pounds for hoisting posed an elevation-related risk for plaintiff within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … , and the crate was “an object that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking” … .

Further, there is unrebutted evidence that various devices, including wooden blocks for bracing, would have stabilized the crate while it was being maneuvered into a position to have slings placed on it for hoisting by the crane. Grant v Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, 2016 NY Slip Op 04003, 1st Dept 5-24-16

LABOR-CONSTRUCTION LAW (REMOVING A CRATE FROM A FLATBED TRUCK WAS AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1))

FALL FROM LADDER WHILE SETTING UP AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1).

The First Department determined plaintiff's fall from a ladder while setting up audiovisual equipment was not covered by Labor Law 240 (1):

While the work that the injured plaintiff was doing immediately before his accident should not be viewed in isolation in determining whether he has a potentially viable claim under Labor Law § 240(1) … , the motion court correctly found that the his work was outside the scope of activity protected by that statute. Plaintiff, a lighting engineer, fell off a ladder while attempting to replace a gel that altered the color of one light on a temporary lighting stand secured to the floor by sandbags. The work performed by plaintiff and his employer entailed moving audiovisual, staging and lighting equipment into a hotel ballroom, assembling, setting up, and positioning the equipment as necessary for its use in an event, and removing it after the event ended. There is no evidence that any of this work “altered” or caused a substantial, or indeed any, physical change to the building … . Royce v DIG EH Hotels, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 03985, 1st Dept 5-19-16

LABOR LAW (FALL FROM LADDER WHILE SETTING UP AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1))

,

FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH CONDITION-PRECEDENT NOTICE PROVISIONS IN THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR DELAY DAMAGES.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was not entitled to [construction] delay damages because plaintiff did not strictly comply with the delay-notice requirements spelled out in the contract as a condition precedent:

“Where a construction contract contains a condition precedent-type notice provision setting forth the consequences of a failure to strictly comply,' strict compliance will be required”… . Express conditions precedent “must be literally performed; substantial performance will not suffice,” and “[f]ailure to strictly comply with such provisions generally constitutes a waiver of a claim” … .

Here, article 11 of the primary contract between the defendant and the City, which is incorporated into the subcontract, contains such a condition-precedent type notice provision. Article 11.1.2 requires a contractor claiming to be sustaining delay damages to submit, “within forty-five (45) Days from the time such damages are first incurred, and every thirty (30) Days thereafter for as long as such damages are incurred, verified statements of the details and amounts of such damages, together with documentary evidence of such damages.” Moreover, pursuant to article 11.2, a failure “to strictly comply with the requirements of Article . . . 11.1.2 shall be deemed a conclusive waiver by the Contractor of any and all claims for damages for delay arising from such condition.”

The letters and emails relied upon by the Supreme Court and the plaintiff did not strictly comply with the contractual notice requirement, since they did not contain verified statements of the amount of delay damages allegedly sustained by the plaintiff and were unsupported by documentary evidence … . Schindler El. Corp. v Tully Constr. Co., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 03868, 2nd Dept 5-18-16

CONTRACT LAW (FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH CONDITION-PRECEDENT NOTICE PROVISIONS IN THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR DELAY DAMAGES)/LABOR-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH CONDITION-PRECEDENT NOTICE PROVISIONS IN THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR DELAY DAMAGES)/CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS (DELAY DAMAGES, FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH CONDITION-PRECEDENT NOTICE PROVISIONS IN THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR DELAY DAMAGES)/DELAY DAMAGES (CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS, FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH CONDITION-PRECEDENT NOTICE PROVISIONS IN THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR DELAY DAMAGES)/CONDITIONS PRECEDENT (CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS, FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH CONDITION-PRECEDENT NOTICE PROVISIONS IN THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT PRECLUDED RECOVERY FOR DELAY DAMAGES)

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL RELEASE PROCURED BY FRAUD OR IN UNFAIR CIRCUMSTANCES.

The Second Department determined questions of fact whether a general release from liability was procured by fraud precluded summary judgment in favor of the defendant in this Labor Law (fall from scaffold) action:

“A release is a contract, and its construction is governed by contract law” … . In general, “a valid release constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim which is the subject of the release” … . “A release may be invalidated, however, for any of the traditional bases for setting aside written agreements, namely, duress, illegality, fraud, or mutual mistake'” … . Moreover, there is a requirement that a release covering both known and unknown injuries be ” fairly and knowingly made'” … .

“A party may move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against him [or her] on the ground that . . . the cause of action may not be maintained because of . . . [a] release” (CPLR 3211[a][5]). However, a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss a complaint on the basis of a release “should be denied where fraud or duress in the procurement of the release is alleged” … .

Here, in support of their motion to dismiss the complaint, the defendants submitted a general release executed by the plaintiff, which, by its terms, barred the instant action against them … . However, the plaintiff’s allegations were nevertheless sufficient to support a possible finding that the defendants procured the release by means of fraud and that the release was signed by the plaintiff ” under circumstances which indicate unfairness'” … . Pacheco v 32-42 55th St. Realty, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 03727, 2nd Dept 5-11-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL RELEASED PROCURED BY FRAUD OR IN UNFAIR CIRCUMSTANCES)/CONTRACT LAW (GENERAL RELEASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL RELEASED PROCURED BY FRAUD OR IN UNFAIR CIRCUMSTANCES)/RELEASES (GENERAL RELEASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL RELEASED PROCURED BY FRAUD OR IN UNFAIR CIRCUMSTANCES)/FRAUD (GENERAL RELEASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL RELEASED PROCURED BY FRAUD OR IN UNFAIR CIRCUMSTANCES)

, ,

OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD CAN BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 AND 241.

The First Department noted that an out-of-possession landlord can be held liable for Labor Law 240 and 241 claims:

… [T]he court improperly dismissed the Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 claims on the ground that the City was an out-of-possession landlord, since the statutes impose liability on property owners without regard to the owner's degree of supervision or control over the premises … . Siguencia v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 03108,  1st Dept 4-26-16


LADDER WAS NOT DEFECTIVE, FALL NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240.

The First Department determined plaintiff's fall from a ladder did not support a Labor Law 240 cause of action. Plaintiff's pant leg caught on an unmarked rebar as he descended from the third rung. The accident was not caused by a defective ladder and was not attributable to an extraordinary elevation-related risk:

… [D]ismissal of the Labor Law § 240 claim was proper, as there is no dispute that the ladder was free from defects, and the record shows that plaintiff's fall was not attributable to the kind of extraordinary elevation-related risk that the statute was designed to prevent. Rather, plaintiff's injuries “were the result of the usual and ordinary dangers at a construction site” … . Almodovar v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2016 NY Slip Op 03075, 1st Dept 4-21-16


OPENINGS THROUGH WHICH A WORKER’S BODY COULD NOT COMPLETELY FALL NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 241(6).

Plaintiff was injured when his leg slipped into a 12-inch square opening in a rebar grid. The Second Department determined an opening through which a worker's body could not fall through was not an elevation hazard (Labor Law 240(1)) and did not violate a regulation prohibiting “hazardous openings” (Labor Law 241(6):

… [T]he openings of the grid, which were not of a dimension that would have permitted the plaintiff's body to completely fall through and land on the floor below, did not present an elevation-related hazard to which the protective devises enumerated in Labor Law § 240(1) are designed to apply … . …

This Court has repeatedly held that 12 NYCRR 23-1.7, which concerns “hazardous openings,” does not apply to openings that are too small for a worker to completely fall through … . Vitale v Astoria Energy II, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 02986, 2nd Dept 4-20-16


12 TO 18 INCH FALL SUPPORTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1).

The First Department determined a fall of 12 to 18 inches sufficed to award plaintiff summary judgment Labor Law 240 (1) action:

Plaintiff was injured when, while carrying wood planks, he fell through an opening in a latticework rebar deck to a plywood form that was 12 to 18 inches below. “There is no bright-line minimum height differential that determines whether an elevation hazard exists” … , and here, the record establishes that plaintiff's fall was the result of exposure to an elevation related hazard … . Brown v 44 St. Dev., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 02527, 1st Dept 3-31-16

LABOR LAW (12 TO 18 INCH FALL SUPPORTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF 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