What's New...
What's New
July 2026 This is a case involving a New York Construction site accident. The plaintiff's claim is for injuries stemming from moving an 800 lb electrical cabinet or "endbox." It involves New York Labor Law § 240(1), of Scaffold Law, which imposes strict liability for elevation-related injuries for construction workers and Labor Law 240(6), which imposes strict safety obligations regarding height-related risks (such as settings involving scaffolds, ladders, etc.). Although the plaintiff's claim on this law was originally dismissed, the Appellate Division reversed the dismissal, based on reasons outlined below, including the effect of gravity on the endbox.
According to the plaintiff, he was instructed by his supervisor to assemble a team of coworkers to move and install the endbox. He complained to the supervisor that they did not have the proper equipment to move it. After the endbox was transported inside the property by a lift, the plaintiff and other workers transported the endbox at around chest height when a worker tripped on a piece of rebar that was protruding. This resulted in the endbox pinning the plaintiff against a wall.
The plaintiff established a prima facie basis for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, proving that his injuries stemmed from gravity acting on the endbox. A hoist or forklift should have been used here (Court referenced Runner v New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 NY3d 599, 603 [2009]). In opposition, defendants were not able to raise a triable issue of fact.
The court found that because they were granting plaintiff summary judgment on liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim, his arguments on the Labor Law § 241(6) claim are academic (referencing Fanning v Rockefeller Univ., 106 AD3d 484, 485 [1st Dept 2013]). But they felt that the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims were not academic, being relevant to the defendants’ indemnification claims (referencing Lucas v. City of New York, 236 AD3d 523, 525 [1st Dept 2025], Sandoval-Morales v. 164-20 N. Blvd., LLC, 231 AD3d 501, 503 [1st Dept 2024]). Parties: Canales Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant against Noble et al, Defendants-Appellants-Respondents; Noble et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants Respondents against C & L, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent Appellant; Noble Second Third-Party Plaintiffs Appellants-Respondents against Team et al. Second Third-Party Defendants Respondents-Appellants. Read the Appellate Division decision - Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, First Judicial Department
According to the plaintiff, he was instructed by his supervisor to assemble a team of coworkers to move and install the endbox. He complained to the supervisor that they did not have the proper equipment to move it. After the endbox was transported inside the property by a lift, the plaintiff and other workers transported the endbox at around chest height when a worker tripped on a piece of rebar that was protruding. This resulted in the endbox pinning the plaintiff against a wall.
The plaintiff established a prima facie basis for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, proving that his injuries stemmed from gravity acting on the endbox. A hoist or forklift should have been used here (Court referenced Runner v New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 NY3d 599, 603 [2009]). In opposition, defendants were not able to raise a triable issue of fact.
The court found that because they were granting plaintiff summary judgment on liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim, his arguments on the Labor Law § 241(6) claim are academic (referencing Fanning v Rockefeller Univ., 106 AD3d 484, 485 [1st Dept 2013]). But they felt that the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims were not academic, being relevant to the defendants’ indemnification claims (referencing Lucas v. City of New York, 236 AD3d 523, 525 [1st Dept 2025], Sandoval-Morales v. 164-20 N. Blvd., LLC, 231 AD3d 501, 503 [1st Dept 2024]). Parties: Canales Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant against Noble et al, Defendants-Appellants-Respondents; Noble et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants Respondents against C & L, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent Appellant; Noble Second Third-Party Plaintiffs Appellants-Respondents against Team et al. Second Third-Party Defendants Respondents-Appellants. Read the Appellate Division decision - Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, First Judicial Department
