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

DEBRIS LEFT BEHIND AFTER WORK ON ANOTHER PROJECT WAS NOT “INTEGRAL” TO THE WORK PLAINTIFF WAS PERFORMING WHEN HE TRIPPED AND FELL; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CERTAIN LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON INDUSTRIAL CODE VIOLATIONS; IN ADDITION THE CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEBRIS; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on certain Labor Law 241(6) causes of action and the city’s motion to dismiss the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence claims should not have been granted. Plaintiff tripped on discarded plastic and rock debris from prior sidewalk demolition and construction. Plaintiff was working on reconstruction of a sidewalk bridge when he fell. Therefore the plastic and rock debris did not constitute material integral to the work plaintiff was performing as Supreme Court had held. In addition, although the city did not exercise supervisory control over the work, the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action should not have been dismissed because the city did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition created by the debris:

The plastic and the rock were not integral to the work performed by plaintiff or his coworkers because it constituted an accumulation of debris from previous work that was left in a “passageway” or “working area” which should have been kept free of debris ​… . * * *​

The “task at hand” did not involve demolition. It is uncontested that plaintiff and his coworkers were dismantling and rebuilding a sidewalk bridge at a new location and that plaintiff fell when he slipped and tripped while manually transporting a heavy beam to the new location. While it is undisputed that Padilla was a general contractor that did demolition work, the court’s overly broad view of the integral to the work defense reads [Industrial Code] sections 23-1.7(e)(1) and (2) out of existence. Lourenco v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 03540, First Dept 6-27-24

Practice Point: Debris left over from another job was not “integral” to the work being performed at the time of plaintiff’s fall, therefore the presence of the debris violated certain provisions of the Industrial Code.​

Practice Point: Although the city did not exercise supervisory control over the work, it did not demonstrate a lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Therefore the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action should not have been dismissed.

 

,

IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE, DEFENDANT PROPERTY MANAGER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION OR THAT IT LACKED CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; IN ADDITION PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant property management company (Fulton) was not entitled to dismissal of the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action and plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this ladder-fall case. Plaintiff fell when a permanent ladder attached to the building came loose:

… [T]he Fulton defendants failed to establish … that they lacked actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition of the ladder, which the plaintiff described in his deposition as rusty and old. The evidence the Fulton defendants submitted in support of their motion “did not eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the allegedly dangerous condition of the [ladder] should have been discovered upon a reasonable inspection” … . Furthermore, the Fulton defendants failed to establish … that they lacked control over the work site … . * * *

“The collapse of a scaffold or ladder for no apparent reason while a plaintiff is engaged in an activity enumerated under the statute creates a presumption that the ladder or scaffold did not afford proper protection” … . Through the submission of his deposition testimony, the plaintiff established … that he was exposed to an elevation risk within the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1), that the ladder collapsed for no apparent reason, and that the inadequately secured ladder was a proximate cause of his injuries … .

… [I]n opposition … the … defendants … failed to present a plausible view of the evidence—enough to raise a triable issue of fact—that there was no statutory violation and that the plaintiff’s own acts or omissions were the sole cause of the accident … . Valentin v Stathakos, 2024 NY Slip Op 03512, Second Dept 6-26-24

Practice Point: Here the permanent ladder which came loose causing plaintiff’s fall was “old and rusty” which raised a question of fact whether the defendant property manager had constructive notice of the condition. The Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action should not have been dismissed.

Practice Point: In the absence of evidence plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident, the collapse of a ladder warrants summary judgment on a Labor Law 240(10 cause of action.

 

IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, PLAINTIFF STEPPED ON A SMALL WOODEN “PATCH” COVERING A HOLE IN THE FLOOR AND HIS LEG WENT THROUGH THE HOLE; DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THE ACCIDENT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE WAS REJECTED; THE PRECISE NATURE OF THE ACCIDENT NEED NOT BE FORESEEN; IT IS ENOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS SUBJECTED TO AN ELEVATION-RELATION RISK AND NO SAFETY EQUIPMENT WAS PROVIDED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was walking on a floor which had holes in it where mechanical equipment had been removed. When plaintiff stepped on a 12-inch by 12-inch “patch” which had been placed over a hole his leg went through and he was injured. The First Department rejected defendant’s argument that the incident was not foreseeable:

Plaintiff was working in the interstitial space, approximately eight feet from the 11th floor below, and was thus exposed to the effects of gravity. … [T]he affixing of “harnesses and safety lines attached to a safe structure” are the type of safety devices envisioned by § 240(1) to prevent a worker from falling through a collapsing floor … , which plaintiff was not provided.

… “A plaintiff in a case involving the collapse of a permanent structure must establish that the collapse was ‘foreseeable,’ not in a strict negligence sense, but in the sense of foreseeability of plaintiff’s exposure to an elevation-related risk”… . To establish foreseeability, “[a] plaintiff need not demonstrate that the precise manner in which the accident happened, or the injuries occurred was foreseeable; it is sufficient that [plaintiff] demonstrate that the risk of some injury from defendant’s conduct was foreseeable” … . This foreseeability analysis … applies to the partial collapse of a permanent structure … . Ciaurella v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y., 2024 NY Slip Op 03455, First Dept 6-25-24

Practice Point; This is the second Labor Law 240(1) case in recent weeks involving the collapse of a permanent structure (a roof in the prior case and here a floor). In both cases the Appellate Division rejected the argument the accident was not foreseeable.

 

IT WAS FORSEEABLE THAT A LEAKY ROOF NEEDING REPAIR WOULD COLLAPSE WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON IT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, who fell when the roof he was working on collapsed, was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. The court noted the accident was foreseeable and no protective device was provided:

“‘In order for liability to be imposed under Labor Law § 240(1), there must be a foreseeable risk of injury from an elevation-related hazard . . . as defendants are liable for all normal and foreseeable consequences of their acts'” … . “Thus, to establish a prima facie case pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must demonstrate that the risk of injury from an elevation-related hazard was foreseeable, and that an absent or defective protective device of the type enumerated in the statute was a proximate cause of the injuries alleged” … .

Here, the plaintiffs demonstrated, prima facie, that the need for safety devices to protect the injured plaintiff from an elevation-related hazard was foreseeable, as the injured plaintiff was replacing wood decking on a pitched, elevated roof that had sustained water leaks, and that his injuries were proximately caused by the lack of adequate safety devices … . Sanchez v Congregation of Emanuel of Westchester, 2024 NY Slip Op 03446, Second Dept 6-20-24

Practice Point: An accident must be foreseeable to trigger liability under Labor Law 240(1). Here the court deemed it foreseeable that a roof which leaked and needed repair would collapse when plaintiff was standing on it.

 

IF AN UNSECURED A-FRAME LADDER MOVES CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO FALL, PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this A-frame ladder-fall case. Plaintiff alleged the unsecured ladder moved causing him to fall:

… [T]he plaintiff demonstrated 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 § 240(1). The plaintiff’s deposition testimony established that the unsecured ladder moved and fell, causing him to fall … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s own acts or omissions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . Paiba v 56-11 94th St. Co., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 03437, Second Dept 6-20-24

Practice Point: Because contributory negligence is not a defense to a Labor Law 240(1) cause of action, it is enough to allege an A-frame ladder was unsecured and moved, causing plaintiff to fall.

 

,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN OWNER OR A GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND EXERCISED NO SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY OVER THE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED; HOWEVER DEFENDANT MAY HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING THE ALLEGEDLY DANGEROUS CONDITION DURING PRIOR WORK ON THE PROPERTY; THEREFORE THE COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMSSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that, although the Labor Law causes of action were properly dismissed, the common-law negligence cause of action should not have been dismissed. Defendant BHI was not an owner of the property or a general contractor and was not present on site when plaintiff was injured. The injured plaintiff worked for another prime contractor. But BHI had previously done the work which allegedly caused plaintiff’s injury. Because BHI was not an owner or a general contractor and had no supervisory authority on the day of the accident, the Labor Law causes of action did not apply. But the common-law negligence cause of action was applicable:

A defendant that is not an owner, general contractor, or agent pursuant to the Labor Law with regard to a plaintiff’s work may nonetheless be held liable to the plaintiff under a theory of common-law negligence “where the work” the defendant “performed created the condition that caused the plaintiff’s injury” … . “An award of summary judgment in favor of a subcontractor [or prime contractor] dismissing a negligence cause of action is improper where the evidence raises a triable issue of fact as to whether [it] created an unreasonable risk of harm that was the proximate cause of the . . . plaintiff’s injuries” … . Delaluz v Walsh, 2024 NY Slip Op 03030, Second Dept 6-5-24

Practice Point: This case illustrates why it is a good idea to allege a common-law negligence cause of action in addition to a Labor Law 200 cause of action.

,

LABOR LAW 240(1) DOES NOT APPLY TO SLIPPING ON A STAIRCASE STEP, THE PERMANENT STAIRCASE IS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO ADD AN INDUSTRIAL CODE VIOLATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined (1) Labor Law 240(1) does not apply to slipping on a staircase step; and (2) plaintiff should have been allowed to amend the pleadings to assert a violation the Industrial Code in support of the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action:

“‘[L]eave to amend the pleadings to identify a specific, applicable Industrial Code provision may properly be granted, even after the note of issue has been filed, where the plaintiff makes a showing of merit, and the amendment involves no new factual allegations, raises no new theories of liability, and causes no prejudice to the defendant'” … . “Mere lateness is not a barrier” to amendment, absent prejudice … , which exists where the nonmoving party “has been hindered in the preparation of [its] case or has been prevented from taking some measure in support of [its] position” … .

Here, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for leave to amend the bill of particulars to allege a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(e) with regard to the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action. The plaintiff made a showing of merit, the amendment presented no new factual allegations or new theories of liability, and the amendment did not prejudice the defendants. The defendants were put on sufficient notice through the complaint, the bill of particulars, and the plaintiff’s deposition testimony that the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action related to the defendants’ alleged failure to provide proper safety devices, such as a chute or hoist, to be used in the removal of demolition debris from the building during demolition operations. * * *

… [D]efendants established, prima facie, that Labor Law § 240(1) was inapplicable to the facts of this case … . The permanent staircase from which the plaintiff fell was a normal appurtenance to the building and was not designed as a safety device to protect him from an elevation-related risk … . Verdi v SP Irving Owner, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02721, Second Dept 5-15-24

Practice Point: A permanent staircase is not a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1).

Practice Point: Amendment of pleadings alleging a violation of Labor Law 241(6) to add the violation of an Industrial Code provision should generally be allowed, even if late.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE PIPE WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION INHERENT IN THE WORK, IT WAS AN AVOIDABLE DANGEROUS CONDITION AND THERE REMAIN QUESTIONS ABOUT MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE THE TRIPPING HAZARD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact which rendered the summary judgment motion premature in this Labor Law 241(6) action. A pipe 5-12 inches above the floor, although a dangerous condition inherent in the work, was an “avoidable dangerous condition.”  There remain questions of fact about preventative measures taken to minimize the tripping hazard:

Plaintiff, a welder, tripped over electrical conduit piping that rose vertically 5-12 inches in height from the floor surface in the lobby of a new building under construction and was injured. While the presence of the electrical conduit piping was a “dangerous condition” “inherent to the task at hand,” the risk of tripping over the conduit was an “avoidable dangerous condition” for which defendants could have utilized preventative measures that would not have made it impossible to complete the work … . Indeed, it is undisputed that plywood boxes ordinarily were placed on the protruding conduit piping, which mitigated the risk of tripping without rendering the overall work impossible to complete. The plywood boxes, however, were removed at the time of plaintiff’s accident. Issues of fact remain regarding the preventative measures taken to mitigate the risks associated with the dangerous condition. Accordingly, summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) is premature and the claim is reinstated to resolve the issues of fact detailed above. Maldonado v Hines 1045 Ave. of the Ams. Invs. LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02666, First Dept 5-14-24

Practice Point: In the context of a Labor Law 241(6) cause of action, even though a dangerous condition is inherent in the work, it may be an avoidable dangerous condition requiring measures to mitigate the risk.

 

DEFENDANT IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF MISSED A STEP AND WAS THEREFORE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant in this ladder-fall case raised a question of fact whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his fall. The two-justice dissent disagreed:

We conclude that plaintiff met his initial burden on the motion of establishing that the ladder was “not so placed . . . as to give proper protection to [him]” through evidence that plaintiff fell when the ladder suddenly and unexpectedly shifted … . The burden then shifted to defendant to raise a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff’s “own conduct, rather than any violation of Labor Law § 240 (1), was the sole proximate cause of [his] accident”… . We conclude that defendant met that burden through evidence suggesting that plaintiff fell from the ladder because he missed a step while descending, not because the ladder shifted or otherwise failed … .

From the dissent:

… [E]ven if there was non-hearsay evidence that plaintiff mis-stepped and missed a rung while descending the ladder, defendant still does not raise a triable question of fact with respect to proximate cause. “It is well settled that [the] failure to properly secure a ladder to insure that it remains steady and erect while being used, constitutes a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1)” … and, here, defendant does not dispute plaintiff’s allegations that defendant failed to properly erect, secure or place the ladder to prevent it from shifting. Missing a rung while descending the ladder is not an act of “such an extraordinary nature or so attenuated from the statutory violation as to constitute a cause sufficient to relieve [defendant] of liability” … . Krause v Industry Matrix, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 02653, Fourth Dept 5-10-24

Practice Point: Here evidence plaintiff “missed a step’ raised a question of fact whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his fall from a ladder.

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) LADDER-FALL ACTION, DEFENDANTS RAISED TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT BY POINTING TO INCONSISTENCIES IN PLAINTIFF’S ACCOUNT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants were able to raise triable issues of fact in this ladder-fall Labor Law 240(1) cause by pointing to inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s version of events:

Plaintiff was allegedly injured while removing and replacing bricks on a building at a construction site. At his deposition, plaintiff testified that while working, he climbed up an extension ladder to retrieve materials necessary for the project. According to plaintiff, when he reached a point around seven to eight feet off the ground, the ladder suddenly moved, causing him to fall.

Plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by submitting his deposition testimony describing the accident, along with photographic evidence of the accident site.

… [D]efendants raised triable issues of fact sufficient to defeat the motion by identifying various inconsistencies in plaintiffs account of the accident, thus calling into question his overall credibility and the circumstances underlying his claimed injuries … . For example, plaintiff testified inconsistently about the day that he was allegedly injured, whether he continued working after his alleged accident, and whether he promptly reported his accident. Further, the record evidence shows that plaintiff first went to the hospital at least several days after his employer had allegedly terminated him for unexplained, repeated absenteeism. Simpertegui v Carlyle House Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 02609, First Dept 5-9-24

Practice Point: Credibility issues can defeat a motion for summary judgment.

 

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