Labor Law

Absolute Liability Arising From Violations of NY Labor Law §240 Depends On Exact Scope Of Employment

In Gonzalez v. DOLP 205 Properties II, LLC, 206 A.D.3d 468 (2d Dep’t 2022), the plaintiff construction worker sustained injuries after falling from stilts he was standing on while performing work. Given his injuries stemmed from an elevation-related hazard, the plaintiff claimed the defendant property owner was liable under New York Labor Law § 240(1), and initially prevailed on his summary...Read More

Telephone Pole Owners Not Necessarily Owners Under Labor Law (NY)

In Villalta v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., et al, the First Department recently considered the application of Labor Law 240(1) strict liability as it applies to telephone poles. In that matter, the plaintiff was a cable-service repairman who was injured in a fall while inspecting storm-damaged cable equipment. Specifically, he had propped his ladder against a telephone pole...Read More

Defining Construction Work Under Labor Law 241(6) (NY)

When a plaintiff becomes injured on a construction project, it is important to know exactly what kind of work the plaintiff was performing at the time of the accident, and the purpose of the work, to determine liability under Labor Law 241(6). Labor Law 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty on property owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to those...Read More

Look Out Below–How Much Height Differential Is Required For A Falling Object Claim Under Labor Law 240(1)? (NY)

When a lawsuit alleges that a plaintiff’s injuries are caused by an object falling from the same relative height as plaintiff, does the claim satisfy the elevation hazard requirements of Labor Law §240(1)? Liability under Labor Law §240(1) does not automatically apply just because an object fell and injured a worker. The law requires that a plaintiff prove that at the time the object fell, it...Read More

Safety Devices And Proving Labor Law §240(1) Claims (NY)

I have fallen and can’t get up! Now what? When a plaintiff brings a Labor Law §240(1) claim for injuries sustained from falling through an unprotected opening, he or she must prove that they were exposed to an elevated related risk during construction and must present evidence as to which specific and identifiable safety device would have prevented the fall. Labor Law §240(1) imposes a...Read More

Court Rejects GC’s Summary Judgment Motion on Additional Insured Issue (NY)

In Gemini Insurance Company v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, et al. New York County Supreme Court examined whether a general contractor was entitled to additional insured coverage from a plaintiff’s employer, who was a third-party defendant in the underlying personal injury action. Hernandez, an employee of Source, was injured while working at a jobsite.   Hernandez sued CM...Read More

Gravity Induced Accidents Only: Clarity on Labor Law §240(1) (NY)

Robert Shencavitz v. Yuji Sugimoto is an interesting personal injury action. Plaintiff – a sailboat rigging technician – sought recovery under New York Labor Law §240(1) (i.e., the Scaffold Law) for damages sustained when his head was struck on a sailboat’s radar equipment while ascending via pulley along the vessel’s mast. The issue on Defendant’s summary judgment motion was whether...Read More

Don’t Be Shocked by Denial of Labor Law 240(1) (NY)

The New York Supreme Court, Kings County has recently held that if a plaintiff is doing non-electrical work at a construction job site but touches live electrical wires and then falls from a height after being electrocuted, that plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment pursuant to Labor Law 240(1). In Synysta v. 450 Partners LLC, the plaintiff, a painter, was on a Baker’s scaffold and was...Read More

A Synysta Labor Law Case (NY)

Volodmyr Synysta v. 450 Partners LLC, NY Slip Op. 50508(U), 2021 WL 2213821 (Kings County, May 20, 2021) is a Labor Law action. Plaintiff brought Labor Law §§240(1), 241(6), 200, and common law negligence claims against various parties for injuries sustained after falling from a scaffold at a construction site. In the instant motion, Plaintiff sought summary judgment on his §§ 240(1), 241(6)...Read More

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