You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law
, ,

Defendant’s Motion for a Judgment as a Matter of Law, Made Prior to the Close of Plaintiff’s Case, Was Premature and Should Not Have Been Granted Irrespective of the Improbability of Plaintiff’s Ultimate Success

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have granted defendant’s motion for a judgment as a matter of law, which was made (and granted) before plaintiff had completed putting in his case.  Plaintiff fell from a ladder at a work site and alleged a violation of Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence:

Prior to the close of the plaintiff’s case, the Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint, concluding that there was no evidence of a dangerous condition at the work site. The Supreme Court thereafter entered judgment in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint. …

The Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint. “A motion for judgment as a matter of law is to be made at the close of an opposing party’s case or at any time on the basis of admissions (see CPLR 4401), and the grant of such a motion prior to the close of the opposing party’s case generally will be reversed as premature even if the ultimate success of the opposing party in the action is improbable” … . Schultz v Hi-Tech Constr & Mgt Serv Inc, 2015 NY Slip OP 00521, 2nd Dept 1-21-15

 

,

Criteria for Contractual Indemnification Explained

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 241(6) cause of action properly survived summary judgment and defendant was entitled to indemnification under the relevant contract.  The court explained the contractual indemnification criteria:

“While owners and general contractors owe nondelegable duties under the Labor Law to plaintiffs who are employed at their worksites, these defendants can recover in indemnity, either contractual or common-law, from those considered responsible for the accident” … . A party’s right to contractual indemnification depends upon the specific language of the relevant contract … . A promise to indemnify should not be found unless it can be clearly implied from the language and purpose of the entire agreement and the surrounding circumstances … . In addition, “a party seeking contractual indemnification must prove itself free from negligence, because to the extent its negligence contributed to the accident, it cannot be indemnified therefor” (…see General Obligations Law § 5-322.1). Shea v Bloomberg LP, 2015 NY Slip OP 00353, 2015 NY Slip Op 00353, 2nd Dept 1-14-15

 

Collapse of Makeshift Scaffold Entitled Plaintiff to Summary Judgment in Labor Law 240(1) Action—Plaintiff’s Comparative Negligence Is Not a Defense

The Fourth Department determined summary judgment should have been granted to the plaintiff in the Labor Law 240 (1) action. Plaintiff was not provided with a scaffold or safety equipment.  Plaintiff fashioned a makeshift scaffold which collapsed.  The court noted plaintiff’s comparative negligence (in the construction of the scaffold) is not a defense under Labor Law 240 (1):

We conclude that “[t]he fact that the scaffold collapsed is sufficient to establish as a matter of law that the [scaffold] was not so placed . . . as to give proper protection to plaintiff pursuant to the statute” … . Contrary to defendant’s contention, there is no issue of fact whether the safety equipment provided to plaintiff was sufficient to afford him proper protection under Labor Law § 240 (1). The only safety device provided to plaintiff at the work site was a 14-foot-long pick [an aluminum plank]. “There were no harnesses, lanyards, safety lines, or similar safety devices available for use to prevent [plaintiff’s] fall” … . To perform the work of installing siding on the building, plaintiff therefore had to create what the court accurately referred to as a “makeshift” scaffold by placing one end of the pick in the shovel of a backhoe and the other end between two pieces of wood he or a coworker nailed into the side of the building. “[T]he onus [was not] on plaintiff to construct an adequate safety device, using assorted materials on site [that were] not themselves adequate safety devices but which may [have been] used to construct a safety device” … . Bernard v Town of Lysander, 2015 NY Slip Op 00050, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

, ,

Questions of Fact Raised Re: Whether Plaintiff’s Decedent’s Brother and Plaintiff’s Decedent Were Employees of the Defendants (Who Then May Be Liable Under the Doctrine of Respondeat Superior) or Independent Contractors

The Second Department determined a question of fact had been raised about whether the brother of plaintiff's decedent was defendants' employee or an independent contractor.  Defendants are the owners of a single family home who hired plaintiff's decedent's brother and plaintiff's decedent to cut down a tree on the property. Plaintiff's decedent was killed when he was thrown head-first into a tree during the tree-felling process. Plaintiff's decedent sued defendants under negligence, violation of Labor Law sections 200 and 240, and wrongful death theories.  Plaintiff's decedent sought to hold defendants liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior (as the employer of decedent's brother, who negligently performed his work, causing plaintiff's decedent's death). Plaintiff's decedent and his brother were hired by the defendants at the suggestion of a mason, Cano, who worked for the defendants.  Cano relayed defendants' instructions concerning the tree removal to plaintiff's decedent's brother:

“The general rule is that an employer who hires an independent contractor is not liable for the independent contractor's negligent acts” … . “The determination of whether an employer-employee relationship exists turns on whether the alleged employer exercises control over the results produced, or the means used to achieve the results. Control over the means is the more important consideration” … . Whether a party is an independent contractor or an employee is usually a factual issue for a jury … .

The defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, since the evidence they submitted in support of their motion did not demonstrate the absence of any triable issues of fact … . In support of their motion, the defendants submitted the deposition transcript of the decedent's brother, who testified that the defendant Sean Jencik, in addition to specifying which trees were to be removed, provided instructions as to how the work was to be performed so that the trees would not fall on to the roadway, which were conveyed to him in Spanish through Cano. Moreover, the decedent's brother testified that the defendants gave the money to pay him and the other workers involved with the tree removal to Cano, who then paid them. Sirignano v Jencik, 2014 NY Slip Op 08977, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

,

Summary Judgment Properly Granted in Labor Law 241 (6) Cause of Action/Although Not Demonstrated Here, the Court Noted that Comparative Negligence Is a Valid Defense to a Labor Law 241 (6) Action

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly awarded to plaintiff in his Labor Law 241(6) cause of action. Plaintiff was impaled on an uncapped piece of vertical rebar.  (Although not the case here, the court noted that plaintiff's comparative negligence is a valid defense in a Labor Law 241 (6) action.):

Labor Law § 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty of reasonable care upon owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to persons employed in, or lawfully frequenting, all areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed … . The provision requires owners and contractors to comply with specific safety rules and regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department of Labor … . The particular safety rule or regulation relied upon by a plaintiff must mandate compliance with concrete specifications, and not simply set forth general safety standards … . Comparative negligence is a valid defense to a Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action … .

Here, the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) was predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(2) (12 NYCRR 23-1.7[e][2]), which provides that “floors, platforms and similar areas where persons work or pass shall be kept free from accumulations of dirt and debris and from scattered tools and materials and from sharp projections insofar as may be consistent with the work being performed” (12 NYCRR 23-1.7[e][2]). Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(2) (12 NYCRR 23.17[e][2]) is sufficiently specific to support a cause of action to recover damages pursuant to Labor Law § 241(6) … . However, it has no application where the object that caused the plaintiff's injury was an integral part of the work being performed … .

Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) by showing that there was a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2) and that such violation was a proximate cause of his injuries … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to their allegation that the uncapped rebar was an integral part of the work that was not subject to the cited regulation …, or as to whether the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the accident … . Lopez v NYC Dept of Envtl Protection, 2014 NY Slip Op 08963, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

Failure to Wear a Safety Harness Could Not Constitute the Sole Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Fall (Caused by the Failure of a Scaffolding Plank)—Therefore Plaintiff Entitled to Partial Summary Judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) Claim

The Third Department noted that plaintiff’s failure to wear a safety harness did not preclude recovery for a fall caused by the failure of a scaffolding plank. Under the facts, plaintiff’s failure to wear a harness could not constitute the sole proximate cause of the accident:

…[D]efendant alleged that claimant was recalcitrant in, among other things, failing to use an available safety harness. With respect to such defense, liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) does not attach when safety devices are readily available at the work site and a claimant knows that he or she is expected to use them but, for no good reason, chooses not to and such omission is the sole proximate cause of the accident … . However, where a device intended to support a worker at an elevated height fails and that failure is a proximate cause of the accident, it is “conceptually impossible for a statutory violation (which serves as a proximate cause for a [claimant’s] injury) to occupy the same ground as a [claimant’s] sole proximate cause for the injury” … .

Here, the facts are undisputed that, in an effort to assist with the construction of a platform, claimant stepped onto a plank on the existing scaffold, which was the primary safety device erected for the work, and the plank collapsed, causing claimant to fall and sustain his injuries. Accordingly, claimant’s decision not to wear an available safety harness, or employ other safety measures that might have been available, could not have been the sole proximate cause of the accident, and the Court of Claims correctly awarded claimants partial summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim … . Fabiano v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08695, 3rd Dept 12-11-14

 

Homeowner Not Liable for Construction-Related Death—Criteria for Homeowner’s Exemption and Supervisory Control by Homeowner Described in Some Depth

The Third Department determined the homeowner was not liable to plaintiff’s decedent (under Labor Law 200, 240, 241 (6) or common law negligence) based on the homeowners’ exemption and absence of supervision (by the homeowner) of plaintiff’s decedent’s work.  The homeowner had provided architectural plans to a contractor for an addition to the home.  Plaintiff’s decedent was digging a trench for the basement and was buried and killed when the walls of the trench collapsed.  The court explained the applicable law in unusual detail:

Although Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 “impose nondelegable duties upon contractors, owners and their agents to comply with certain safety practices for the protection of workers engaged in various construction-related activities” …, the Legislature carved out an exception for “owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work” (Labor Law §§ 240 [1]; 241 [6]…). “In this context, the phrase direct or control is to be strictly construed and, in ascertaining whether a particular homeowner’s actions amount to direction or control of a project, the relevant inquiry is the degree to which the homeowner supervised the method and manner of the actual work being performed by the [injured] party” … . That is, “the owner must significantly participate in the project before he or she will be deemed to have crossed the line from being a legitimately concerned homeowner to a de facto supervisor” who is not entitled to the exemption … . * * *

…[U]nder established case law, “neither providing site plans, obtaining a building permit, hiring contractors, purchasing materials, offering suggestions/input, inspecting the site, retaining general supervisory authority, performing certain work, nor physical presence at the site, operates to deprive a homeowner of the statutory exemption — so long as the homeowner did not exercise direction or control over the injury-producing work” … . …

We reach a similar conclusion with respect to plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 claim, which codifies the common-law duty of owners and general contractors “to maintain a safe construction site” … . As a precondition to the imposition of liability upon defendant as a homeowner, “it must be shown that [defendant] exercised supervisory control over [decedent’s] work and had actual or constructive knowledge of the unsafe manner in which the work was being performed” … . “When an alleged defect or dangerous condition arises from [a] contractor’s methods and the owner exercises no supervisory control over the operation, no liability attaches to the owner under the common law or under Labor Law § 200” … . Even “[t]he retention of general supervisory control, presence at a work site, or authority to enforce safety standards is insufficient to establish the control necessary to impose liability” … . Peck v Szwarcberg, 2014 NY Slip Op 08290, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

,

Defendant Homeowner Demonstrated She Did Not Have Actual or Constructive Notice of the Dangerous Condition and Did Not Create the Dangerous Condition (Deck Collapsed When Plaintiff Was Inspecting the Property Prior to Beginning Work)

The Second Department affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the defendant homeowner.  While inspecting defendant’s property before beginning work, the deck collapsed when plaintiff was walking on it.  The plaintiff sued under Labor Law 200 and common law negligence, alleging a dangerous condition.  Defendant demonstrated she did not have actual or constructive notice of the condition:

Where, as here, a plaintiff’s alleged injury arose from a dangerous condition on the premises, a property owner moving for summary judgment dismissing causes of action alleging common-law negligence and a violation of Labor Law § 200 has the initial burden of showing that he or she neither created the dangerous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of it … . A defendant has constructive notice of a defect when it is visible and apparent, and has existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident such that it could have been discovered and corrected … . “When a defect is latent and would not be discoverable upon a reasonable inspection, constructive notice may not be imputed” … .

Here, the defendant demonstrated her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the she did not have actual or constructive notice of the defect in the deck, which was latent and not discoverable upon a reasonable inspection. The defendant further demonstrated that she did not create the defect. Nicoletti v Iracane, 2014 NY Slip Op 07991, 2nd Dept 11-19-14

 

Wooden Flooring With Gaps Between the Planks Constituted an Elevation-Related Hazard

The First Department noted that wooden planks with gaps between them high above the bottom of a shaft constituted and elevation-related hazard to which Labor Law 240 (1) applied “regardless of whether the flooring was permanent.”  Kircher v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 07951, 1st Dept 11-18-14

 

Owners’ Intent, at the Time Plaintiff Was Injured, to Use the Property As a Second Home Triggered the Homeowners’ Exemption to Labor Law Liability Notwithstanding that the Owners Never Occupied the Property and Started Leasing It Two Years After the Accident

The First Department, over a dissent, determined that plaintiff was unable to raise a question of fact about whether defendant-homeowners intended to use the renovated house as income property,  Therefore the homeowners’ exemption under Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) precluded recovery for injuries suffered by the plaintiff during the renovation.  The homeowners did not direct or control plaintiff’s work. The accident occurred in 2005.  One of the owners, Parry, testified that they intended to use the place as a second home.  In 2007, having never occupied the house, the owners decided to lease the house and did so.  The court determined the owners’ intent at the time of the accident in 2005 controlled:

The owners made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to the homeowner’s exemption by demonstrating that their premises consist of a one-family dwelling and that they did not direct or control plaintiff’s work … . Therefore, the burden shifted to plaintiff to “produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial of the action” … . Plaintiff has failed to meet this burden as his arguments before this Court and the motion court are based on unfounded speculation that the owners intended to use the house solely for commercial purposes.

The availability of the homeowner’s exemption hinges upon “the site and the purpose of the work, a test which must be employed on the basis of the homeowners’ intentions at the time of the injury” … . Accordingly, plaintiff and the dissent misplace their reliance on the lease, which the owners entered into almost two years after plaintiff’s injury. Farias v Simon, 2014 NY Slip Op 07932, 1st Dept 11-18-14

 

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