{"id":696,"date":"2024-10-22T15:47:28","date_gmt":"2024-10-22T19:47:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/?p=696"},"modified":"2024-10-22T15:47:29","modified_gmt":"2024-10-22T19:47:29","slug":"insights-into-new-yorks-construction-liability-laws","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/2024\/10\/22\/insights-into-new-yorks-construction-liability-laws\/","title":{"rendered":"INSIGHTS INTO NEW YORK\u2019S CONSTRUCTION LIABILITY LAWS"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In a recent decision, Injai v. Circle F 2243 Jackson (DE), LLC<\/em>, the New York Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial of a plaintiff\u2019s motion for summary judgment in a case involving alleged violations of New York\u2019s Labor Law \u00a7\u00a7 240(1) and 241(6). This case, centered on a construction site accident, highlights the complexities and requirements of proving liability under New York\u2019s Labor Laws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The plaintiff, a carpenter, was injured after falling from a ladder while working at a construction site. He claimed that the ladder wobbled or moved as he was ascending it, causing him to lose balance and fall. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the property owner and its contractor, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law \u00a7\u00a7 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The defendants filed a third-party action against the subcontractor that had allegedly hired the plaintiff.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The plaintiff sought summary judgment on the issue of liability, focusing on the alleged violations of Labor Law \u00a7 240(1) and \u00a7 241(6). Labor Law \u00a7 240(1), commonly known as the \u201cScaffold Law,\u201d imposes a nondelegable duty on owners and contractors to provide safety devices to protect workers from elevation-related risks. To prevail, a plaintiff needs to show that the statute was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court found that the plaintiff\u2019s evidence raised triable issues of fact. There were unresolved questions about how the accident occurred, whether the ladder was indeed unsecured, and the credibility of the plaintiff\u2019s account, given that he was the sole witness to the accident. The court explained that when the plaintiff is the sole witness to the accident or their credibility is in question, it is improper to grant summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff under Labor Law \u00a7 240(1). Consequently, the court denied the motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law \u00a7 240(1) claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court also found unresolved factual issues regarding the alleged violation of Labor Law \u00a7 241(6), which was based on a violation of 12 NYCRR 23\u20131.21(b)(4)(ii). This regulation pertains to safety standards for ladders used in construction, stating in part that \u201c[a]ll ladder footings shall be firm.\u201d The plaintiff\u2019s inability to conclusively prove that this regulation was violated and that such a violation caused his injuries led to the denial of summary judgment on this claim as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This decision highlights the standards that plaintiffs must meet to obtain summary judgment in construction accident cases under New York\u2019s Labor Laws. It emphasizes the necessity for clear, unequivocal evidence when alleging safety violations and the importance of corroborative testimony or documentation, especially in cases where the plaintiff is the sole witness to the accident. The ruling illustrates the need for thorough and credible proof in proving liability under Labor Law \u00a7\u00a7 240(1) and 241(6).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jose A. Aquino<\/a>\u00a0(@JoseAquinoEsq<\/a> on X) is a special counsel in the New York office of Duane Morris LLP, where he is a member of the Construction Group<\/a> and of the Cuba Business Group<\/a>.\u00a0 Mr. Aquino focuses his practice on construction law, lien law and government procurement law. This blog is prepared and published for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author\u2019s law firm or its individual attorneys.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In a recent decision, Injai v. Circle F 2243 Jackson (DE), LLC, the New York Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial of a plaintiff\u2019s motion for summary judgment in a case involving alleged violations of New York\u2019s Labor Law \u00a7\u00a7 240(1) and 241(6). This case, centered on a construction site accident, highlights the complexities and … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “INSIGHTS INTO NEW YORK\u2019S CONSTRUCTION LIABILITY LAWS”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":66,"featured_media":504,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[9,818,593,817,500,819],"ppma_author":[699],"class_list":["post-696","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general","tag-construction","tag-construction-liability","tag-jose-a-aquino","tag-ny-labor-laws","tag-osha","tag-scaffold-law"],"authors":[{"term_id":699,"user_id":66,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jaaquino","display_name":"Jose A. Aquino","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/6\/2014\/07\/aquinojose-125x150.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/696","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/66"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=696"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/696\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/504"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=696"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=696"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=696"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/constructionlaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=696"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}