You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law

Ladder Which “Kicked Out” from Under Plaintiff Entitled Plaintiff to Partial Summary Judgment/Replacement of Cracked Glass Constituted Covered “Repair” Not Routine Maintenance

The First Department, over a dissent, determined that the replacement of cracked glass in skylight constituted repair rather than routine maintenance, and therefore was a covered activity under Labor Law 240 (1).  A ladder used by the plaintiff to access the skylight “kicked out” from under him:

“The plaintiff need not demonstrate that the [safety device] was defective or failed to comply with applicable safety regulations,” but only that it “proved inadequate to shield [plaintiff] from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person” … . The inexplicable shifting of an unsecured ladder may alone support a § 240(1) claim if a worker is caused to fall due to such shifting … . A worker’s prima facie entitlement to partial summary judgment on his or her § 240(1) claim may be established by proof that the ladder provided collapsed under the worker while he or she was engaged in an enumerated task … .

The crux of this case involves the question of whether plaintiff was involved in repair or maintenance work. “Essentially, routine maintenance for purposes of the statute is work that does not rise to the level of an enumerated term such as repairing or altering” … . In distinguishing between what constitutes repair as opposed to routine maintenance, courts will consider such factors as “whether the work in question was occasioned by an isolated event as opposed to a recurring condition” …; whether the object being replaced was “a worn-out component” in something that was otherwise “operable” …; and whether the device or component that was being fixed or replaced was intended to have a limited life span or to require periodic adjustment or replacement …

.

Here, plaintiff described the panes as being constructed of “heavy plate glass” with wire running through them and stated that they simply “do not crack or wear out over time.” Plaintiff showed, without contradiction, that these panes were not being replaced as a result of normal wear and tear, as they were not expected to be regularly replaced. Soriano v St Mary’s Orthodox Church of Rockland, Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 04419, 1st Dept 6-17-14

 

Homeowner’s Exemption Applied/Fact that Three Unrelated Families Lived in the Home Did Not Negate the Finding that the Home Was a Single Family Dwelling

The First Department determined defendants were entitled to dismissal of the complaint on the basis of the homeowner’s exemption to liability under Labor Law 241(6).  The fact that three unrelated families lived in the home did not negate the finding that the home was a single-family dwelling:

Under the homeowner exemption, “owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work” are exempt from liability under Labor Law § 241(6). Here, defendants established that the premises was a single-family dwelling by submitting affidavits stating that they purchased the premises solely as a second residence for use by family and guests, that they had never used any of the portion of the premises for a commercial purpose, and that the barn in which plaintiff was injured was being converted into a recreational room for personal use … . Moreover, the affidavits of plaintiff’s employer and supervisor stating that they supervised plaintiff’s work and provided plaintiff with the tools for his work, including the saw that caused his injuries, along with defendants’ affidavits stating that they were not on site during the construction work, show that defendants did not direct, supervise, or control plaintiff’s work… . …

To the extent plaintiff’s affidavit states that three different unrelated families, including defendants’ family, the household staff, and the groundskeeper, lived at the premises, such is insufficient to negate a finding of a single-family dwelling. Under the circumstances presented, defendants and their staff were “living together and maintaining a common household” … . Furthermore, the certificate of occupancy lists all of the buildings under one address, and the alteration work on all of the buildings was covered by one building permit, also listing one address … .  Patino v Drexler, 2014 NY Slip Op 02537, 1st Dept 4-15-14

 

Aeration Tank Constituted an Unventilated Confined Area Requiring Air Quality Monitoring

The First Department determined plaintiff had stated a cause of action under Labor Law 241(6) based upon his inhalation of toxic fumes inside an aeration tank, finding the tank constituted an unventilated confined area requiring air quality monitoring:

The court properly denied the portion of defendants’ motion seeking dismissal of plaintiffs’ Labor Law § 241(6) claim as predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(g). We find that, as a matter of law, the aeration tank is an unventilated confined area requiring air quality monitoring … . Pursuant to 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(g), the atmosphere of an unventilated confined area must be monitored “where dangerous air contaminants may be present or where there may not be sufficient oxygen to support life.” Here, the cement tank is a large container used to aerate and clean sewage. Entering the tank poses a potential hazard since, as admitted by a deputy superintendent for the DEP in his deposition, a person could experience oxygen depletion as gases “displace the oxygen.” Defendants contend that in order for an area to be a confined space, as defined by 12 NYCRR 12-1.3(f), it must have a restricted means of access, such as a trap door or a manhole. We reject this argument. An area does not need to be accessible only by a narrow opening in order to have a “restricted means of egress” (12 NYCRR 12-1.3[f]). Although the top of the tank was open to the air, access was still restricted as [plaintiff] needed to use a 20-foot ladder to enter and exit the tank. Therefore, given the tank’s use in the process of filtering sewage and its restricted means of access, 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(g) is applicable.  Cerverizzo v City of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 02385, 1st Dept 4-8-14

 

, ,

Question of Fact Whether Out of Possession Landlord, Based on the Terms of the Lease, Had a Duty to Keep the Premises Safe (Labor Law 200)

The Second Department determined the provisions of a lease raised a question of fact about whether an out-of-possession landlord had a duty to keep the premises safe:

“Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty of an owner or general contractor to provide workers with a safe place to work” … .  * * * …[T]o the extent that the plaintiff’s claims were based on a dangerous condition on the premises, specifically the structural design, construction, and condition of a portion of the floor, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. “An out-of-possession landlord generally will not be responsible for injuries occurring on its premises unless the landlord has a duty imposed by statute or assumed by contract or a course of conduct” … . Here, the lease submitted by the defendants in support of their motion provided, among other things, that the defendants were required to “repair the damaged structural parts of the Premises,” that they were “not required to repair or replace any equipment, fixtures, furnishings or decorations unless originally installed by Landlord,” and that they retained the “right to enter into and upon said premises, or any part thereof . . . for the purpose of . . . making such repairs or alterations therein as may be necessary for the safety and preservation thereof.” Based on these provisions, under the circumstances of this case, the defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that they did not have a duty imposed by contract to remedy the specific dangerous or defective condition alleged here. Thus, to prevail on their motion, the defendants were required to establish that they neither created the alleged dangerous or defective condition nor had actual or constructive notice thereof … . Here, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they did not create the dangerous or defective condition alleged by the plaintiff to have contributed to his fall.  Quituizaca v Tucchiarone, 2014 NY Slip Op 02024, 2nd Dept 3-26-14

 

, , ,

Finding by Workers’ Compensation Law Judge Precluded Suit Under Labor Law and Common Law Negligence

Over a two-justice dissent, the Fourth Department determined the finding that no accident occurred by the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge precluded plaintiff from suing under the Labor Law and common law negligence for an injury allegedly incurred while working on a house.  The court rejected the argument that the Workers’ Compensation proceeding dealt soley with the existence or non-existence of an employer-employee relationship:

The doctrine of collateral estoppel “precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party or those in privity, whether or not the tribunals or causes of action are the same” … . Thus, “[t]he quasi-judicial determinations of administrative agencies are entitled to collateral estoppel effect where the issue a party seeks to preclude in a subsequent civil action is identical to a material issue that was necessarily decided by the administrative tribunal and where there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate before that tribunal” … . “The party seeking the benefit of collateral estoppel has the burden of demonstrating the identity of the issues in the present litigation and the prior determination, whereas the party attempting to defeat its application has the burden of establishing the absence of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action” … .Here, defendant met his burden on his motion by establishing the “identicality and decisiveness of the issue” decided in the workers’ compensation proceeding… . Ridge v Gold, et al, 1300, 4th Dept 3-21-14

 

Construction Manager Not Liable Under Labor Law 241(6), Labor Law 200, or Under Common Law Negligence/No Control Over Work or Responsibility for the Premises

Over a dissent, the Fourth Department determined a construction manager was not liable as an agent of the owner under Labor Law 241(6) because the manager did not control the activity which resulted in the injury.  In addition the court determined the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action should hav been dismissed:

A construction manager may be liable as an agent of the owner if “the manager had the ability to control the activity which brought about the injury” … . “ ‘Defendant established as a matter of law that it was not an agent of the owner because the owner had not delegated to it the authority to supervise and control plaintiff’s work’ ” … . Pursuant to the express terms of the contract between defendant and the District, defendant “had no control over or responsibility for the safety of the workers at the construction site” … . The deposition testimony and affidavits submitted by defendant established that defendant acted in accordance with its authority under the contract, i.e., coordinating the schedules of the contractors and ensuring that their work complied with the requirements of the construction documents, and did nothing more. * * *

“Where the alleged defect or dangerous condition arises from the 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” … . On the other hand, where the “ ‘plaintiff’s injuries stem not from the manner in which the work was being performed[ ] but, rather, from a dangerous condition on the premises, [an owner or] general contractor may be liable in common-law negligence and under Labor Law § 200 if it has control over the work site and actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition’  … . Regardless of which theory applies here, defendant was not an agent of the owner and “was not responsible either for the performance of [plaintiff’s] work or the premises on which that work was undertaken” … . Hargrave…v LeChase Construction Services LLC, 1373, 4th Dept. 3-21-14

 

“General Supervision” of Work Site Did Not Trigger Liability Under Labor Law 241(6)

The Second Department determined  a company (Draghi) hired by the home builder (Majestic)  to do framing work and general supervision was not liable to plaintiff (who was injured when he tripped while using stilts to work on the ceiling) under Labor Law 241(6):

Draghi demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action insofar as asserted against it by establishing that it was not an owner, general contractor, or statutory agent of the owner or general contractor … . Draghi did not hire any contractors and was not charged with “the duty of co-ordinating all aspects of [the] construction project” … . Rather, Draghi merely assumed a role of “general supervision,” pursuant to which it checked the progress of the work and reported to Magestic … . Draghi demonstrated that it did not have the ability to control the activity which brought about the plaintiff’s injury … . Thus, Draghi established that it could not be held liable under Labor Law § 241(6)… . Gonzalez v Magestic Fine Custom Home, 2014 NY Slip Op 01713, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

Being Thrown from the Forks of a Forklift Is a Gravity Related Event Under Labor Law 240 (1)

The First Department determined that being thrown from the front forks of a forklift (Bobcat) is a gravity related event covered by the Labor Law:

…[W]e find that falling from the Bobcat is the type of gravity related event contemplated by the Court of Appeals in Runner v New York Stock Exch., Inc. (13 NY3d 599 [2009]). In Potter v Jay E. Potter Lumber Co., Inc. (71 AD3d 1565 [4th Dept 2010]), the [4th] Department, relying on Runner, similarly found that a worker, who like plaintiff here, was positioned as a counterweight for a load on a forklift and was catapulted forward when the forklift became unstable, was entitled to the protection of Labor Law § 240(1). Penaranda v 4933 Realty, LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 01547, 1st Dept 3-11-14

 

Operating a Scaffold for the Benefit of an Enumerated Activity Done by Others (Caulking) Entitles Scaffold Operator to Coverage Under Labor Law 240 (1)

The First Department determined a scaffold operator was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) claim. The scaffold was being operated for the benefit of caulkers who could not do their work without the scaffold operator:

Although plaintiff …. was not operating the scaffold in his capacity as a window washer at the time of the accident, he was operating it for the caulkers who could not have safely discharged their duties without him. Since caulking is an activity of the sort enumerated in Labor Law § 240(1) …, plaintiff is entitled to the same statutory protection as the caulkers, and his Labor Law § 240(1) claim against 888 Seventh Avenue should not be dismissed. Further, given the evidence that the lanyard and harness provided to plaintiff proved inadequate to shield him from falling through the rail track, plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability on that claim … . DeJesus v 888 Seventh Ave LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 01273, 1st Dept 2-25-14

 

In a Falling Object Case, the Device Which Failed Was Not a Safety Device—Defendant Not Liable

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined the action based upon injury from a falling conduit should have been dismissed because the device which failed was not a safety device:

Labor Law § 240 (1) … requires owners and contractors to provide proper protection to those working on a construction site … . It imposes absolute liability where the failure to provide such protection is a proximate cause of a worker's injury … .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” … . Contrary to the dissent's contention, section 240 (1) does not automatically apply simply because an object fell and injured 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” … .

The Appellate Division … in denying summary judgment to defendants … , because they established as a matter of law that the conduit did not fall on plaintiff due to the absence or inadequacy of an enumerated safety device.

The compression coupling, which plaintiff claims was inadequate, is not a safety device “constructed, placed, and operated as to give proper protection” from the falling conduit. Its only function was to keep the conduit together as part of the conduit/pencil box assembly. The coupling had been installed a week before the incident and had been serving its intended purpose until a change order was issued and plaintiff dismantled the conduit/pencil box assembly. Fabrizi v 1095 Avenue of the Americas…, 15, CtApp 2-20-14

 

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