You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law

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))

THE INDUSTRIAL CODE REQUIRED A GUARD ON THE SAW WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF; DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE ALLEGATION THERE WAS NO PLACE TO INSTALL A GUARD ON THE SAW.

The plaintiff was injured when he was struck by part of a saw blade which broke off from the hand-held reciprocating saw he was using. A provision of the Industrial Code, with a couple of exceptions not relevant to this case, requires guards on hand-held saws. The saw used by plaintiff did not have any guards. Defendant alleged there was no place to attach such a guard on the saw and the plaintiff testified he had never seen a reciprocating saw with a guard. The First Department upheld the motion court's finding that the Industrial Code applied to the saw in question as a matter of law. Therefore defendant's motion for summary judgment was properly denied:

We agree with the motion court that defendant failed to satisfy its burden of establishing that section 23-1.12(c) does not apply to this case. “[T]o support a claim under Labor Law § 241(6) . . . the particular [Industrial Code] provision relied upon by a plaintiff must mandate compliance with concrete specifications and not simply declare general safety standards or reiterate common-law principles” … . “The interpretation of an Industrial Code regulation and determination as to whether a particular condition is within the scope of the regulation present questions of law for the court” … .

Industrial Code § 23-1.12(c)(1) is sufficiently specific to support a Labor Law § 241(6) claim and is applicable because plaintiff was using a “power-driven, hand-operated saw” at the time of his accident. Defendant sought to use plaintiff's deposition testimony that he had never seen a blade cover or guard on that type of saw as expert testimony to establish that the reciprocating saw plaintiff was given was not covered by the Industrial Code provision in question … . Defendant, however, cannot avoid its duty to comply with section 23-1.12(c)(1) by asserting that the saw used by plaintiff had no base plate and could not accommodate a self adjusting guard. Section 23-1.12(c)(1) obligated defendant to ensure that the “power-driven, hand-operated saw” provided to plaintiff to perform his job was secured with guard plates to cover the saw blade. As the motion court observed, “[T]o interpret the regulation in any other manner [] would be to ineffectualize the regulation because employers, owners and contractors would only use tools that would minimize their liability.” Accordingly, we find that Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.12(c)(1)) is applicable to this case as a matter of law. Kelmendi v 157 Hudson St., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 01903, 1st Dept 3-17-16

LABOR LAW (INDUSTRIAL CODE REQUIRED A GUARD ON THE SAW WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE CLAIM THERE WAS NO PLACE TO INSTALL A GUARD ON THE SAW)/INDUSTRIAL CODE (LABOR LAW, INDUSTRIAL CODE REQUIRED A GUARD ON THE SAW WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE CLAIM THERE WAS NO PLACE TO INSTALL A GUARD ON THE SAW)

PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SHOW LADDER WHICH FELL WAS DEFECTIVE TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The First Department determined plaintiff need not show the ladder which fell was defective to be entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action:

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of his entitlement to summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, by submitting his own testimony that the ladder upon which he was standing to perform his work wobbled, and that both he and the ladder fell to the ground as he descended it to figure out why it had wobbled … . Plaintiff was not required to offer proof that the ladder was defective … .

In opposition, defendant failed to show that plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident … and that it had provided plaintiff with adequate safety devices to prevent his fall … . Ocana v Quasar Realty Partners L.P., 2016 NY Slip Op 01902, 1st Dept 3-17-16

LABOR LAW (NO NEED TO SHOW LADDER WHICH FELL WAS DEFECTIVE TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION)

, ,

LEVEL OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NEEDED TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE CRITERIA FOR SETTING ASIDE A VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE EXPLAINED.

The Second Department determined defendants’ motions to set aside the verdict in this Labor Law 200/common law negligence action were properly denied. The court explained the level of supervision required to hold gas station subtenants liable for a forklift injury, and the criteria for setting aside a verdict:

 

“To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 for injuries arising from the manner in which work is performed, a defendant must have the authority to exercise supervision and control over the work” … . “A defendant has the authority to supervise or control the work for purposes of Labor Law § 200 when [the] defendant bears the responsibility for the manner in which the work [was] performed” … . “[M]ere general supervisory authority at a work site for the purpose of overseeing the progress of the work and inspecting the work product is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200” … . “If the challenged means and methods of the work are those of a subcontractor, and the owner or contractor exercises no supervisory control over the work, no liability attaches under Labor Law § 200 or the common law” … .

… “To be awarded judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401, a defendant must show that there is no rational process by which the jury could find for the plaintiff against the moving defendant” … . In considering a motion for judgment as a matter of law, “the trial court must afford the party opposing the motion every inference which may properly be drawn from the facts presented, and the facts must be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmovant” … . “In making this determination, a court must not engage in a weighing of the evidence,’ nor may it direct a verdict where the facts are in dispute, or where different inferences may be drawn or the credibility of witnesses is in question'” … . …

“[A] jury verdict should not be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence unless the jury could not have reached the verdict by any fair interpretation of the evidence” … . “Whether a jury verdict should be set aside as contrary to the weight of the evidence does not involve a question of law, but rather requires a discretionary balancing of many factors” … . The apportionment of fault among the parties is generally an issue of fact for the jury … , and the jury’s apportionment of fault should not be set aside unless it could not have been reached based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence … . Hernandez v Pappco Holding Co., Ltd., 2016 NY Slip Op 01295, 2nd Dept 2-24-16

 

LABOR LAW (LEVEL OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NEEDED TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION)/NEGLIGENCE (LEVEL OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NEEDED TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (CRITERIA FOR SETTING ASIDE A VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)/VERDICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE (CRITERIA FOR SETTING ASIDE A VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE)

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