| Relevant Case Law
Note: No recovery under section 240 of the Labor Law if employee's injury is caused by violation of employer's instructions to use provided safety equipment.
Note: Status as illegal alien limits recovery for lost earnings in a 240(1) action.
Note: Sharing officers and directors is insufficient to establish alter-ego status.
Note: Worker that steps off scaffolding on to pipe that rolls causing injury not compensable under Scaffolding Law.
Note: Allegation of colorably meritorious claim sufficient to permit late filing for violations of 200 & 240 Labor Law, but not 241.
Note: Section 11 permits an alleged tortfeasor in an action arising from a workplace accident to assert a claim against the employee's employer sounding in common-law indemnity or contribution only where the employee suffered a grave injury, a term which includes the total loss of use of a foot.
Note: No safety devices were in place to prevent employees from falling through the roof.
Note: the employee's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability should have been granted, and the branch of the cross motion of the employer's third-party plaintiffs was properly denied.
Note: The Supreme Court improperly granted summary judgment to the employer with respect to the employee's common-law negligence claim as, triable issues of fact existed.
Note: Even if there was construction and repair work taking place elsewhere on the job site at the time of injury, there is no indication that the employee's work was integrated therewith and, thus, he may not rely upon work conducted by others in order to bring him within the statute's protections.
Note: Any negligence in plaintiff's use of a harness was not the sole proximate cause of his accident.
Note: Plaintiff's testimony indicated that the alleged air contaminants were not present prior to commencement of the work, thus employer demonstrated its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
Note: The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he fell from a height or that the height or adequacy of the scaffold was the proximate cause of his injuries.
Note: The violations alleged by the plaintiff in his complaint and the bill of particulars either do not provide a basis for liability under Labor Law section 241(6) or are inapplicable to the facts of this case.
Note: Because the absence of a safety railing or any other device to prevent plaintiff's fall constituted a violation of Labor Law Section 240 (1), plaintiff's alleged conduct in attempting to move the scaffold without first unlocking the wheel brakes would amount only to comparative fault and thus cannot bar recovery.
Note: Despite plaintiff's later contentions that the use of the scaffolding was prevented by the obstructions in the room, the issue is irrelevant since there was no evidence that the ladder was otherwise defective or inadequate to perform the job such that another safety device was required.
Note: The fact that claimant settled the underlying action does not preclude it from seeking indemnification from the third-party defendant, though any recovery by claimant based upon common-law indemnification would be contingent upon a showing that the third-party defendant was 100% at fault for the plaintiff's injuries.
Note: A new trial is granted because the testimony of the defense witnesses regarding potential Building Code violations was based, at least in part, on the erroneous premise that 23-2.5(b)(3) required a partition between the elevator shaftways and the testimony was improperly admitted.
Note: Plaintiff's award of $10 million for future pain and suffering deviates materially from what is reasonable compensation to the extent indicated.
Note: The metel decking on which claimant was injured was a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law section 240 (1), and employer is therefore liable for claimant's injury.
Note: Because the safety measures required by 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b) bespeak of protections against falls from an elevated area to a lower area through openings large enough for a person to fit, the evidence that plaintiff's coworker was already in the trench when plaintiff fell in is sufficient to show a violation of that section.
Note: Repairing and replacing electrical wiring in order to restore lighting to the entire floor was more than simply changing a lightbulb, and constituted repairs within the meaning of Labor Law section 240(1).
Note: Plaintiff fell because of fatigue, not due to defects in the ladder with which he was working.
Note: Plaintiff's cleaning work was not incidental to contruction, demolition or repair work, and did not involve a significant alteration to the premises, therefore plaintiff's injury does not fall under section 240 (1).
Note: The architect on a contruction project who was named as a third-party defendent was entitled to summary judgement because he did not direct workers in their performance of the injury-producing work.
Note: Defendants showing that proper safety devices were provided and that the worker's own actions may have been the cause of his injuries are sufficient to defeat summary judgement for claimant.
Note: Defendent did not exercise control over the injured plaintiff's work, and he is therefore not entitled to an award under Labor Law Section 200.
Note: Property owner's motion for summary judgement dismissing a claim under Labor Law Section 200 should have been granted, as the owner was not responsible for supervision or control of the work site and had no notice of a hazardous condition.
Note: The mere fact that the building superintendent told the decedent which windows to clean and directed the time he was to perform the work did not raise a triable issue of fact as to the defendants' supervision and control over the decedent's work, therefore the superintendent is not liable under Labor Law Section 200.
Note: A stone that fell and hit the head of a worker fell due to the absence or inadequacy of a safety device, therefore the injured worker was granted summary judgement on his claim under Labor Law Section 240 (1).
Note: Defendent was entitled to summary dismissal of the Labor Law 240(6) action brought against it by demonstrating that the injured parties fall was due to a hazard entirely unrelated to the danger brought about by the need for a ladder.
Note: Plaintiff's Labor Law 240(1) claim should have been denied because his duties as a theator stagehand do not fall within the occupations protected by the statute
Note: Even if the form from which plaintiff fell could be considered a ladder within the meaning of those regulations, they are nevertheless inapplicable because there is no evidence that the accident was caused by or related to any insufficiency in the strength of the form.
Note: Plaintiff's appeal from a denial of his motion for summary judgment is dismissed.
Note: 12 NYCRR 23-8.1 (f) (2) and 23-8.2 are inapplicable to this case because there is no evidence that the crane involved caused the accident or that the crane came into contact with any trees.
Note: Defendent is not liable to plaintiff pursuant to the relevant sections of the Labor Law because the air conditioning installation was performed without its consent and in violation of the lease, which required prior written approval for any installations
Note: The plaintiff was struck by a falling object that had been inadequately secured, therefore the accident clearly falls within the purview of Labor Code Section 240(1).
Note: Gusts of wind on the roof of a 43-story building cannot be characterized as extraordinary, and employer is therefore liable under Section 240(1).
Note: A foreman's affidavit raised a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff's accident occurred as a result of a statutory violation, and summary judgment was therefore properly denied.
Note: Labor Law Section 240(1) does not impose liability on an owner or contractor for a worker's failure to request a new ladder to replace one in an unacceptable condition.
Note: The parties failed to establish whether the injured plaintiff had access to properly placed and adequate safety devices.
Note: The defendant assumed responsibility for safety concerns on the job site, so it was liable for the labor code violations on that site.
Note: The defendants did not exercise any control over the manner or method of the work and that they did not create or have notice of any alleged defective condition on the property, so the Labor Law Section 200 complaint against them should have been dismissed.
Note: Plaintiff was properly denied summary judgment because a question remained as to how he used the ladder that in use at the time of the accident.
Note: The plaintiff's negligence was not the sole proximate cause of his work-related accident.
Note: Defendants' instruction to the plaintiff related to the aesthetic appearance of the home, which does not constitute the kind of control necessary to overcome the statutory exemption from liability.
Note: There is no evidence that safety devices existed on the site and were made available to decedent, therefore any alleged contributory negligence on the part of decedent is immaterial because the statutory violation has been established as a proximate cause of his death.
Note: The court abused its discretion in precluding defendant's liability expert from testifying and thus erred in denying that part of defendant's posttrial motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial.
Note: Defendant has failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether its nine-month delay in providing notice to plaintiff was reasonably founded upon a good-faith belief that it should not have anticipated a claim.
Note: Plaintiff's inconsistent accounts of the manner in which the accident occurred raise issues of fact whether the statute was violated and, if so, whether that violation was a proximate cause of the accident.
Note: An issue of fact remained as to whether the cause of plaintiff's fall was his own conduct or a problem with the ladder he was using, therefore summary judgment was inappropriate.
Note: Although the heating unit that plaintiff was manually realigning had been placed on the roof by a crane, the injury plaintiff suffered when his hand got stuck between the unit and the platform on which it was resting was a general hazard of the workplace and not the result of a significant risk inherent in the elevation differential between the unit and the platform.
Note: Plaintiff's injuries arose out of the performance of the subcontracted work and were caused by the third-party defendant.
Note: Labor Law Section 241 is not applicable because the facts of the case do not conform with the conditions in the statute.
Note: The defendant established her entitlement to summary judgment dismissing causes of action alleging common-law negligence and a violation of Labor Law Sections 200, 240(1) and 241(6), by demonstrating that she was the owner of a two-family dwelling at the time of the accident and that she did not direct or control the work.
Note: Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on a Labor Law 240(1) claim because the makeshift scaffold on which he was required to work provided him with inadequate protection.
Note: The approximately five-foot elevation between the top of a truck's utility bin and the ground did not present the type of elevation-related risk contemplated by Labor Law Section 240(1).
Note: Plaintiff's amendment to his bill of particulars was prejudicial to defendant, was filed untimely, and was without merit.
Note: Because the record is inconclusive as to whether the claimant could have affixed his lanyard to a standing object, and whether that would have been a proper safety measure in satisfaction of Labor Law Section 240(1), the claimant's motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law Section 240(1) claim was properly denied.
Note: Plaintiff's 90 percent share of fault is excluded from the calculation when determining the extent of defendant's responsibility under CPLR 1601.
Note: Plaintiff's injuries were caused by the normal dangers of a construction site, and he is therefore unable to obtain relief under Labor Law Section 240(1).
Note: Plaintiff failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the accident arose from the type of elevation-related risk contemplated by the statute since there are issues of fact as to exactly how the accident occurred.
Note: The plaintiffs' evidentiary submissions raise issues of fact as to whether Garden City had control over the work site where the injury occurred and prior notice of the alleged dangerous condition on the premises.
Note: The power of the court to award summary judgment for or against to a nonmoving party does not dispense with the necessity for fair notice and an opportunity of a party to present his or her defenses.
Note: The defendant property owners made a prima facie showing that they did not control the plaintiff's work, were not present on site, were not told of the lack of an appropriate safety device, nor were made aware of the slippery conditions due to rain.
Note: Because the work was performed without landlord's knowledge, and in violation of the lease requirement that tenant obtain prior consent, the landlord cannot be held liable under Labor Law Section 240(1).
Note: Contrary to the further contention of defendant, it failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff�s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident.
Note: The court erred in denying the owners' cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim, since there was no evidence that the owners supervised or controlled plaintiff's work, or created or knew of the allegedly hazardous conditions.
Note: In order for section 240(1) to apply, there must be a significant, inherent risk attributable to an elevation differential. The statute does not cover the type of ordinary and usual peril to which a worker is commonly exposed at a construction site.
| 