You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law
,

Hearsay, Although Admissible, Will Not Alone Raise a Triable Issue of Fact/A “Contractor” (Within the Meaning of Labor Law 240 (1)) Need Only Have the Authority to Control the Work—It Need Not Actually Exercise that Authority

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly granted to the plaintiff for his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. A one-ton concrete plank fell from a jack onto plaintiff’s hand.  The court noted that the hearsay submitted by the defendant, claiming that plaintiff was injured when he continued to work after being ordered to stop, was not sufficient to defeat plaintiff’s summary judgment motion.  Hearsay is admissible in this context but hearsay alone will not suffice to raise a triable issue of fact. The court also found that the defendant was a contractor within the meaning of Labor Law 240 (1).  To meet the definition, the contractor must have the authority to enforce safety measures and hire responsible subcontractors, but need not have exercised that authority:

“Although hearsay evidence may be considered in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, such evidence alone is not sufficient to defeat the motion” … .

… “A party which has the authority to enforce safety standards and choose responsible subcontractors is considered a contractor under Labor Law § 240(1)” … . [Defendant’s] status as a contractor under Labor Law § 240(1) is dependent upon whether it had the authority to exercise control over the work, not whether it actually exercised that right … . Guanopatin v Flushing Acquisition Holdings, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 02933, 2nd Dept 4-8-15

 

Slip and Fall On Ice While Wearing Stilts Not an Elevation-Related Event within Meaning of Labor Law 240 (1)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a dissent, determined that a slip and fall caused by ice on the floor was not an elevation-related event within the meaning of Labor 240(1), despite the fact the worker was using stilts when he slipped and fell:

… [T]he protections of Labor Law § 240 (1) “do not encompass any and all perils that may be connected in some tangential way with the effects of gravity” … . “Rather, liability [remains] contingent upon the existence of a hazard contemplated in section 240 (1) and the failure to use, or the inadequacy of, a safety device of the kind enumerated therein” … . Moreover, section 240 (1) is not applicable unless the plaintiff’s injuries result from the elevation-related risk and the inadequacy of the safety device … . * * *

Here, plaintiff’s accident was plainly caused by a separate hazard — ice — unrelated to any elevation risk. Plaintiff testified that stilts were the appropriate device for the type of work that he was undertaking, given the height of this particular ceiling. Plaintiff’s testimony further established that it was the ice — not a deficiency or inadequacy of the stilts — that caused his fall. Nicometi v Vineyards of Fredonia, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 02801 CtApp 4-2-15

 

Work on Billboard Was “Alteration” within Meaning of Labor Law 240 (1) and “Construction” within Meaning of Labor Law 241 (6)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined that plaintiff, who fell putting up advertisement on a billboard, was engaged in covered activities pursuant to Labor Law 240 (1) (alteration), 240 (2) (no guardrail) and 241 (6) (construction):

[W]e conclude that plaintiff was engaged in work that constitutes an alteration within the meaning of the statute. In reaching this determination we apply the definition the Court adopted in Joblon, that the term “altering” in section 240 (1) “requires making a significant physical change to the configuration or composition of the building or structure” (Joblon, 91 NY2d at 465). This definition excludes “routine maintenance” and “decorative modifications” (id.). Whether a physical change is significant depends on its effect on the physical structure. Thus, the Court held that the plaintiff in Joblon who was injured when he fell off a ladder while in the process of chiseling a hole through a concrete block wall so that he could run electrical wires from one room to another to install a wall clock was engaged in “altering” under section 240 (1). As the Court held, extending the wiring and chiseling a hole through the concrete constituted a significant change and entailed “more than a simple, routine activity” (id. at 465-66).

Here, plaintiff’s job was to install a new advertisement. In order to do so he and the other members of the construction crew had to attach extensions that changed the dimensions of the billboard’s frame and transformed the shape of the billboard to accommodate the advertisement’s artwork. Plaintiff was injured when in furtherance of this task he fell while assisting the other crew members with the removal of the old vinyl advertisement from the billboard’s side panels. The vinyl removal was a prerequisite to the attachment of the extensions and therefore an integral part of the installation of the extensions. We have little difficulty concluding that the plaintiff’s work entails a significant change to the billboard structure because once the vinyl is removed, the billboard is enlarged by the attachment of the extensions, work accomplished by the use of the angle iron on the back of each extension, and application of nuts, bolts and nails.  Saint v Syracuse Supply Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 02802, CtApp 4-2-15

 

Maneuvering a Heavy Door from a Scissors Lift to the Door Opening on the Second Floor Was Not an Elevation-Related Risk within the Meaning of Labor Law 240(1)/Nature of Labor Law 200 Action Explained

The Fourth Department determined maneuvering a heavy door across a two-foot gap between the scissors lift on which plaintiff was standing and the door opening on the second floor was not an elevation-related risk within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1).   Plaintiff’s Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action, however, survived defendant’s summary judgment motion:

“Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or general contractor to provide employees with a safe place to work” … . The duty does not, however, “extend to hazards which are part of or inherent in the very work which the contractor is to perform’ ” … . Here, plaintiff’s accident resulted from the manner in which the work was performed, and it is undisputed that defendant had the authority to supervise and control the methods and manner of plaintiff’s work, and that it in fact exercised such supervisory control … . Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that the risk of injury owing to moving a heavy door across a two-foot gap while at an elevated height with the assistance of a single worker was “inherent in plaintiff’s work” … . We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in denying that part of its motion and granting that part of plaintiffs’ cross motion with respect to the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. “The extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240 (1) extend only to a narrow class of special hazards, and do not encompass any and all perils that may be connected in some tangential way with the effects of gravity’ ” … . Rather, the statute “was designed to prevent those types of accidents in which the scaffold, hoist, stay, ladder or other protective device proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person” … . Here, plaintiff injured his back while maneuvering a heavy door across a lateral gap; the door did not fall or descend even a de minimis distance owing to the application of the force of gravity upon it … . Although “the injured plaintiff’s back injury was tangentially related to the effects of gravity upon” the door he was lifting, “it was not caused by the limited type of elevation-related hazards encompassed by Labor Law § 240 (1)” … . We thus conclude that the hazard at issue here, i.e., lifting or carrying a heavy object across a lateral gap, even while positioned at a height, is a “routine workplace risk[]” of a construction site and not a “pronounced risk[] arising from construction work site elevation differentials” … . Carr v McHugh Painting Co., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02584, 4th Dept 3-27-15

 

Fall of a Heavy Rail from a Two- To Three-Foot Stack Was an Elevation-Related Event

The First Department determined the fall of a heavy rail from a stack two to three feet high was an elevation-related event within the meaning of the Labor Law:

We agree with the motion court’s finding that the pile of rails that were stacked two and one-half to three feet high was not de minimis, given the approximately 1500 pound weight of the rail and “the amount of force it was capable of generating, even over the course of a relatively short descent” … . The harm plaintiff suffered was the direct consequence of the application of the force of gravity to the rail that struck plaintiff … .

“What is essential to a conclusion that an object requires securing is that it present a foreseeable elevation risk in light of the work being undertaken” … . It was foreseeable that during hoisting, a crane could strike the stacked pile of rails causing it to fall …, and therefore, the rail that struck plaintiff was an object that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking … . We are not persuaded by the City’s contention that plaintiff failed to identify a necessary and expected safety device, as plaintiff demonstrated that the City could have used secure braces, stays, or even additional lines to stabilize the stacked rails … . Jordan v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 02565, 1st Dept 3-26-15

 

Subcontractor Which Did Not Supervise Injured Plaintiff or Control Site Safety May Still Be Liable Under Common-Law Negligence for Creating the Dangerous Condition

The Second Department determined questions of fact existed whether a subcontractor (Geiger), which did not supervise the injured plaintiff or control safety measures, could be held liable for common-law negligence for creating the dangerous condition:

Supreme Court properly denied that branch of Geiger’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for common-law negligence insofar as asserted against it. A subcontractor “may be held liable for negligence where the work it performed created the condition that caused the plaintiff’s injury even if it did not possess any authority to supervise and control the plaintiff’s work or work area” … . An award of summary judgment in favor of a subcontractor on a negligence claim is improper where the “evidence raise[s] a triable issue of fact as to whether [the subcontractor’s] employee created an unreasonable risk of harm that was the proximate cause of the injured plaintiff’s injuries” … . Here, there are triable issues of fact as to whether employees of Geiger created the dangerous condition that allegedly caused the injured plaintiff’s accident. Lombardo v Tag Ct. Sq.,LLC,  2015 NY Slip Op 02458, 2nd Dept 3-25-15

 

Heavy Shelves Bolted to the Wall Constituted a “Structure” and Dismantling the Shelves Constituted “Demolition” within the Meaning of the Labor Law

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on liability re: his Labor Law 240(1)  and 241(6) claims.  The court determined the dismantling of heavy shelves which were bolted to the wall constituted demolition of a structure within the meaning of the Labor Law:

Plaintiff was injured in a fall from an unsecured ladder while working in a warehouse, where his job was to “clean out, remove machines, break down structures . . . and ship them out.” The work included removal of heavy machinery and shelves that ran from floor to ceiling across three second-floor walls, each 50 feet long and 8 feet high, and were bolted to the floors and walls. The breaking down and removing of the shelves required the use of impact wrenches and sawzalls to cut the bolts. Removed materials, including shelving, were heavy, and had to be loaded in cages, which were then lifted by a pallet jack, moved to the edge of the second floor, and lowered to the first floor with a forklift. The dismantling of the shelves was a sufficiently complex and difficult task to render the shelving a “structure” within the meaning of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) … . Moreover, in dismantling the shelving, plaintiff was engaged in “demolition” for purposes of §§ 240(1) and 241(6) … . Phillips v Powercrat Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 02407, 1st Dept 3-24-15

 

Safety Device Requirement in Industrial Code Was Specific Enough to Support Labor Law 241(6) Action Based Upon the Absence of a Safety Guard on a Tile Grinder

The First Department, over a dissent, determined that a rule (Industrial Code) requiring that all safety devices be kept sound and operable was specific enough to support a Labor Law 241(6) action based upon the absence of safety guard from a tile grinder:

The motion court erred in finding that section 23-1.5(c)(3) was too general to support plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claim. Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.5(c)(3) provides, “All safety devices, safeguards and equipment in use shall be kept sound and operable, and shall be immediately repaired or restored or immediately removed from the job site if damaged.” In Misicki v Caradonna (12 NY3d 511, 520-521 [2009]), the Court of Appeals held that the third sentence of 12 NYCRR 23-9.2(a), which says, “Upon discovery, any structural defect or unsafe condition in such equipment shall be corrected by necessary repairs or replacement,” imposed an affirmative duty, rather than merely reciting common-law principles, and that therefore its violation was sufficiently specific to support a Labor Law § 241(6) claim. The regulation plaintiff relies on here, 12 NYCRR 23-1.5(c), has a structure similar to 12 NYCRR 23-9.2(a): the first two sentences of section 23-9.2(a) and the first two paragraphs of section 23-1.5(c) employ general phrases (e.g., “good repair, “proper operating condition,” “sufficient inspections,” “adequate frequency”) while the third sentence and paragraph “mandate[] a distinct standard of conduct, rather than a general reiteration of common-law principles, and [are] precisely the type of concrete specification’ that Ross [v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co. (81 NY2d 494 [1993])] requires” (Misicki, 12 NY3d at 521). Since the final paragraph of section 23-1.5(c) is functionally indistinguishable from the third sentence of section 23-9.2(a), in that both mandate a distinct standard of conduct, we find that the Court of Appeals’ reasoning in Misicki applies here, and reject the dissent’s suggestion that the preamble of section 23-1.5 precludes any reliance on the section for purposes of Labor Law § 241(6). Becerra v Promenade Apts. Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02191, 1st Dept 3-19-15

 

Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff’s Negligence Was Sole Proximate Cause of Injuries in Labor Law 240(1) Action

The Second Department determined there were questions of fact precluding both plaintiffs’ and defendant’s motions for summary judgment in a Labor Law 240(1) action.  Although the ladder which tipped over was not defective and was appropriate to the task, there were questions whether the ladder was mispositioned and, if so, who mispositioned it.  The fact that plaintiff may have been negligent did not preclude recovery under Labor Law 240(1) as long a plaintiff’s negligence was not the sole proximate cause of his injury:

In order to prevail on a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, a plaintiff must prove that the statute was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of the injuries … . Proof that the plaintiff’s own negligence was also a proximate cause will not defeat the claim … . When the evidence establishes, however, that the plaintiff’s own negligence was the sole proximate cause of the injuries, the defendant may not be held liable for those injuries … . The parties’ submissions demonstrated that the ladder itself was not defective and was appropriate to [plaintiff’s] task.

There are triable issues of fact … as to whether the ladder was mispositioned and, if so, who mispositioned it, and, if it was mispositioned by [plaintiff], whether his conduct was the sole proximate cause of the ladder’s tipping over … . Daley v 250 Park Ave., LLC. 2015 NY Slip Op 01917, 2nd Dept 3-11-15

 

,

Contract with Construction Manager Did Not Give the Manager Sufficient Supervisory Control to Impose Liability Under Labor Law 200, 240 (1) or 246 (1)

The First Department determined the terms of the contract with the construction manager did not afford the manager sufficient control to impose liability under Labor Law 200.  The court further determined the contract did not make the manager an agent for the property owner, such that the manager would be vicariously liable under Labor Law 240 (1) or 246 (1). Plaintiff fell when an elevated plank on which he was standing shifted:

… [T]he CMS (construction management services contra t) specified that [t]he [construction manager] will not supervise, direct, control or have authority over or be responsible for each contractor’s means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of construction or the safety precautions and programs incident thereto. If it became apparent that the means and methods of construction proposed by the construction contractors would constitute or create a hazard, then the construction manager was required to notify the Commissioner, or . . . his/her duly authorized representative.”

Where a claim under Labor Law § 200 is based on alleged defects or dangers arising from a subcontractor’s methods or materials, liability cannot be imposed on an owner or general contractor unless it is shown that it exercised some supervisory control over the work … . Defendants established that under the CMS they were not obligated to exercise supervisory control over the construction contractor’s means or methods of work, nor did they assume such responsibility … . Although under the CMS the construction manager had some general duties to monitor safety at the work-site, and defendants’ personnel were on site on a daily basis, these general supervisory duties are insufficient to form a basis for the imposition of liability … .

Defendants also established that they were not the property owner’s statutory agent for purposes of Labor Law §§ 240(1) or 241(6) such that they should be held vicariously liable for plaintiff’s injuries …. The CMS did not confer upon the construction manager the right to exercise supervisory control over the individual contractors, nor were defendants authorized to stop the work if their personnel observed an unsafe practice … . The construction manager was only obligated to notify the project owner or its duly authorized representative of such a situation. DaSilva v Haks Engrs, 2015 NY Slip Op 01380, 1st Dept 2-17-15

 

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