Labor Law

Tall Objects Don’t Mean 240 Protection (NY)

In Lemus v. New York B Realty Corp, the Appellate Division, Second Department reaffirmed that a plaintiff is not entitled to judgment as matter of law under Labor Law §240(1) simply because the plaintiff’s accident occurs as a result of working with a large and/or tall object. In this matter, the plaintiff demonstrated that he was employed as a worker on a construction site and was directed to...Read More

Disrupting New York’s Labor Law (NY)

Labor Law 240, often referred to as the Scaffold Law, was passed in 1885 to enforce various safety protocols to prevent slips and falls for construction workers working at heights. Court rulings interpreting the Scaffold Law imposed little responsibility on injured employees, making it difficult for employers to cite comparative negligence to avoid liability. The Scaffold law, which creates an...Read More

NY Court Of Appeals Hints That “But Everyone Was Doing It” May Rebut Labor Law Defense of Sole Proximate Cause (NY)

In Biaca-Neto v. Boston Rd II Hous Dev Fund Corp.,the New York Court of Appeals’ recent ruling offers some insight into how courts will rule regarding sole proximate cause defenses in New York Labor Law cases. Under section 240(1) of the New York Labor Law, construction workers who are injured at job sites can recover if the injury is the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate...Read More

Labor Law in the Time of COVID-19 (NY)

Will plaintiffs be able to pursue claims under the New York Labor Law if they contracted COVID-19 and developed serious complications after working at a construction job site?  Although it is highly likely the plaintiff’s bar will attempt to use Labor Law §200 or §241(6) to make out violations against owners and general contractors for these types of claims, it is unclear if these attempts...Read More

Labor Law Liability Imposed Against Catholic Church (NY)

New York’s Labor Law, section 241(6), imposes a nondelegable duty upon an owner and general contractor to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety for workers and to comply with the specific safety rules and regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department of Labor.  Ortega v Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn is a prime example of how strict this rule is. In that...Read More

2nd Dept. Applies HO Exemption to Labor Law, Rejecting Plaintiff’s “Voluntary” Work Theory (NY)

The New York Labor Law is a harsh statute that imposes strict liability in certain situations.  One exception is the Homeowners’ Exemption, which exempts from liability the homeowners who occupy one and two-family dwellings, who contract for but do not direct or control the work.” This exemption was recently tested in the Second Department in Lazo v. Ricci. In Lazo, the plaintiff was the...Read More

WCM Obtains SJ For Property Owners in Construction Accident (NY)

New York State, unlike most other States, has strict liability statutes that impose absolute liability onto a property owner or general contractor under certain circumstances when a laborer is injured on their premises. Within that statute is an exemption carved out only for owners of one- or two- family homes who contract for, but do not control the work of the contractors. The purpose of...Read More

Falling Object: Labor Law Violation or Simple Premises Liability (NY)

Plaintiffs have come to rely on the strict liability imposed by Labor Law 240 to secure high settlements/verdicts.  However, the case below demonstrates that not every complaint that comes in with allegations of Labor Law violations is grounds for concern. In Djuric v. City of New York,  a pollution control plant that had previously sustained fire damage was undergoing renovation work.  The...Read More

Routine Dismissal for “Routine Maintenance” Under Labor Law (NY)

In Dahlia v. SK Distrib, the Appellate Division, Second Department reversed a lower court ruling that denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims under Labor Law §240 (1).  Plaintiff’s employer, non-party AMX Cooling and Heating, LLC, was hired to service a heating unit for defendant.  Plaintiff, an HVAC service technician, attempted to reach the ceiling...Read More

Failing to Preserve Arguments for an Appeal and Facts that “May or May Not” Exist (NY)

In Gordon v City of New York, the plaintiff sued the LIRR, the City of New York, and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) for injuries that occurred while performing excavation of rock under Grand Central Terminal.  Plaintiff fell from a ladder that slipped out from plaintiff and he fell to the tunnel floor while fixing lights 15-20 feet above him.  The defendants...Read More