FIRST DEPARTMENT
TOPICS: Labor Law § 240(1), Permanent
structure, Ceiling collapse, Foreseeable risk, Protective equipment, Elevation-related hazard, Sole proximate cause, Labor Law § 200, Constructive notice, Renovation, Demolition, Ramp, Lifts LIND V. TISHMAN CONSTRUCTION CORP. OF NEW YORK 118 N.Y.S. 3d 601 February, 13, 2020
The plaintiff, was injured when the lift he was working on suddenly picked up speed as he backed it down a ramp, but due to “slippery sludge” on the ramp, the lift skidded and crashed into a curb causing him to be “ricocheted “ around the lift basket sustaining personal injuries. The plaintiff was granted summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) claim. The court found that the lift was a safety device and that its failure to protect the plaintiff from the elevation-related risk that he faced was the proximate cause of his injury. PRACTICE NOTE: A worker using a lift will be
afforded protections under § 240(1).
TOPICS: Labor Law § 240(1), Ceiling collapse,
Foreseeable risk
CLEMENTE V. 205 W. 103 OWNERS CORP. 119 N.Y.S.3d 109 February 18, 2020
The plaintiff alleged he was injured while renovating an apartment unit when the bathroom ceiling collapsed on him. There were issues of fact as to whether the ceiling was in an advanced state of disrepair due to water damage and whether the plaintiff’s work on the bathroom walls exposed him to a foreseeable risk of injury from an elevation-related hazard, the ceiling collapse. The court also determined an issue of fact as to whether the absence of a type of protective device enumerated under Labor Law § 240(1) was a proximate cause of his injuries. Because the evidence of water stains on the bathroom ceiling could provide constructive notice of a dangerous condition, summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s common law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims was improperly granted. The defendants failed to show that the plaintiff was not engaged in demolition work to trigger § 241(6). His task was part of a larger project that included the demolition of interior walls, “which altered the structural integrity of the building.” PRACTICE NOTE: To prevail on a § 240(1) claim
based on an injury resulting from the failure
of a completed and permanent building structure, the plaintiff must show that the failure of the structure was a foreseeable risk, creating a need for an enumerated device.
TOPICS: Labor Law § 240(1), Ladder, Permanent
structure, Vibrations, Harness, Repair work, Routine maintenance, Comparative negligence, Sole proximate cause KEHOE V. 61 BROADWAY OWNER, LLC
TOPICS: Elevation-related hazard, Safety devices,
Sole proximate cause
121 N.Y.S.3d 230 February 27, 2020
The plaintiff was injured while applying masking tape to a wall fixture and standing on the top plank of a scaffold four feet above the floor. The plank flipped up and the plaintiff fell to the floor. The plaintiff established that were no guardrails and he was not supplied with any other safety devices. The court held that the plaintiff made a prima facie showing that his injuries were caused by a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact with testimony of a site safety manager that he saw another scaffold at the site after the accident that did not appear defective. Even if the defendants submitted admissible evidence of the plaintiff’s negligence, the plaintiff was at most comparatively negligent, which is not a defense to § 240(1).
The plaintiff was ascending a ladder in an elevator shaft that vibrated and caused him to fall 20 feet to the floor of the shaft. The plaintiff was performing repair work, not routine maintenance, at the time of his accident, which falls within Labor Law § 240(1). While an unsecured ladder that moves or shifts constitutes a prima facie violation of § 240(1), here, an issue of fact existed as to whether the ladder, which was secured and permanently affixed, but nonetheless allegedly vibrated, provided proper protection for the plaintiff. To the extent a ladder fails to provide proper protection, a plaintiff’s failure to use a harness amounts at most to comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a § 240(1) claim. The court found that the defendants failed to establish that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident, as they submitted no evidence that the plaintiff knew that he was supposed to use a harness for climbing ladders or that he disregarded “specific instructions” to do so.
PRACTICE NOTE: Evidence that the non-defective
PRACTICE NOTE: A plaintiff’s failure to use a
CARPENTIERI V. 309 FIFTH AVE., LLC 180 A.D.3d 571 February 20, 2020
device was onsite at the time of accident will not defeat a § 240(1) finding if the plaintiff’s accident was caused by a defective safety device.
harness is not a viable “sole proximate cause” defense to § 240(1) where there is no evidence that the plaintiff knew that he was supposed to use a harness for climbing ladders or that he disregarded “specific instructions” to do so.
TOPICS: Summary judgment, Special employee
REYES V. ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF ST. RAYMOND 180 A.D.3d 590 February 25, 2020
Summary judgment was awarded to St. Raymond’s Church dismissing the plaintiff’s Labor Law causes of action finding that plaintiff was its special employee. Although the plaintiff was an employee of a cleaning company, the court found St. Raymond’s facilities manager supervised, controlled, and directed his work, which was for the sole benefit of St. Raymond. PRACTICE NOTE: The Labor Law practitioner
should always keep in mind that a worker may have a general employer and a special employer and exploit that avenue if it can be shown that the special employer had sufficient control over the worker.
TOPICS: Labor Law § 240(1), Sidewalk shed,
Collapse, Demolition, Labor Law § 200
LEVERON V. PRANA GROWTH FUND I, LP 121 N.Y.S.3d 242 March 10, 2020
The plaintiff, an employee of a nonparty sidewalk shed contractor, was injured when three or four sections of a sidewalk shed that he was dismantling collapsed onto him. The collapse of the sidewalk shed is prima facie evidence of a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The plaintiff’s inability to identify the specific piece of the sidewalk shed that struck him is not fatal to his claim, as he is not required to establish the exact manner in which the accident occurred. Moreover, securing the sidewalk shed against collapse would not have been contrary to the purpose of the FALL 2020 | 7