Tag Archives: Labor Law 200

*The One or Two-family Dwelling Exception in Labor Law §§ 240 and 241. I – Direction and Control

On November 24, 2009, in Affri v Basch, the Court of Appeal was presented with the issue of “whether defendants exercised sufficient direction and control over plaintiff’s work to overcome the one or two-family dwelling exception found in Labor Law §§ 240 and 241.”

In an opinion by Judge Pigott, with Judges Graffeo, Read and Smith concurring, the Court held that they did not and therefore affirmed the order of the Appellate Division, 2nd Department which had reversed the lower court. Chief Judge Lippman dissented and voted to reverse the Appellate Division, with Judges Ciparick and Jones concurring.

“Defendants hired plaintiff, a neighbor who had previously done small jobs for them, to perform renovations to an apartment within their home. The work included, as relevant to this appeal, the installation of appliances. Plaintiff fell from a ladder while installing a vent on the roof and suffered injuries that required several surgeries.

Plaintiff brought this action against defendants, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1) and 241 (6) and common law negligence. …

Labor Law § 240 provides in pertinent part as follows:
All contractors and owners and their agents, except owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work, …

A similar homeowner’s exemption is found in Labor Law § 241.

… We have previously stated that whether a defendant’s conduct amounts to direction and control depends upon the degree of supervision exercised over “the [method and manner in which the work is performed” (Duda v Rouse Constr. Corp, 32 NY2d 405, 409 [1973]).

Here, defendants’ participation was limited to discussion of the results the homeowner wished to see, not the method or manner in which the work was then to be performed. Defendants’ direction to plaintiff to place a vent through the roof was simply an aesthetic decision. Defendants did nothing more than what any ordinary homeowner would do in deciding how they wanted the home to look upon completion. Further, defendants did not provide the plaintiff with any equipment or work materials, nor were they even present at the time plaintiff undertook the venting work. Rather, both the method and the manner of plaintiff’s work were left to his judgment and experience.

Plaintiff’s affidavit indicating that he expressed reluctance to go on the roof because of concern for his safety is insufficient to raise an issue of fact. Although plaintiff claims that he did not want to go up on the roof to run the vent because he was working alone, he proceeded to do so—not at the specific direction of defendants but of his own volition to complete the work.

For the same reasons, defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the causes of action pursuant to Labor Law § 200 and for common law negligence because defendants exercised no supervisory control over the activity bringing about the injury (see Lombardi v Stout, 80 NY2d 290, 295 [1992]).

Judge Lippman’s dissent is helpful in setting forth what happened and thus what is insufficient to defeat the homeowner’s exception. In his opinion Judge Lippman said “plaintiff asserts that when he told Mr. Basch that in order to move a sink to Basch’s preferred location he would need to cut a beam that supported the house, defendant instructed him to cut the beam. Basch told plaintiff to place the washer-dryer vent through the roof, rather than through the window, after plaintiff expressed reservations about the safety of that procedure …

*Slipping on a backhoe’s battery cover, which served as a step to access the cab – Labor Law Violation?

If you said yes, you would be in agreement with the Third Department’s ruling in Fassett v Wegmans Food Mkts**., Inc. 2009 NY Slip Op 07712 Decided on October 29, 2009 Appellate Division, Third Department, which held that,” the uncontroverted evidence established that the battery cover constituted a passageway that plaintiff was required to use in order to access his equipment”

“Plaintiff was employed as a heavy equipment operator by Fahs Rolston Paving Corporation, which had been contracted by defendant Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. to replace a sidewalk outside of a Wegmans store in the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County. Wegmans had also entered into a contract with defendant Hunt Engineers, Architects and Land Surveyors, P.C. in which Hunt agreed to provide construction monitoring and inspection services in connection with the sidewalk reconstruction. While plaintiff was exiting the cab of the backhoe he had been operating, he slipped on mud that had accumulated on the backhoe’s battery cover, which served as a step to access the cab, and injured his ankle. Work had been suspended the previous day due to heavy rain and, on the date of the accident, the work site was extremely muddy and it was misting.

Plaintiff commenced this action against Wegmans and Hunt alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1) and § 241 (6)[FN1]. … .

We begin by addressing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty of an owner or general contractor to provide construction site workers with a safe place to work … In order for Wegmans or Hunt to be found liable thereunder, “it must be shown that they ‘exercised supervisory control over plaintiff’s work and had actual or constructive knowledge of the unsafe manner in which the work was being performed'” …

Here, while Wegmans retained general contractual authority to halt work and object to work that did not conform to contract specifications, there is no evidence that it exercised any direct supervision or actual control over the construction site or the work activity bringing about the injury. Paul Lehrer, an engineer employed by Wegmans and the project manager for the sidewalk reconstruction project, stated in his deposition that he was never physically present at the work site, was not directly involved in directing the construction and that Hunt was Wegmans’ on-site representative. Indeed, Lehrer testified that he was never contacted regarding the weather conditions at the site either the day prior to plaintiff’s accident when work was cancelled or on the day of the incident. Plaintiff confirmed that neither Lehrer nor any other Wegmans’ employee was ever present at the construction site and that no one from Wegmans ever directed his work. Thus, with no record evidence that Wegmans exerted any actual control or supervision over plaintiff or the manner in which the work was performed, Supreme Court properly dismissed the negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Wegmans …

As to Hunt, we agree with Supreme Court that plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact sufficient to withstand summary judgment. Although Hunt correctly notes that “general supervisory authority at the work site for the purpose of overseeing the progress of the work and inspecting the work product has been found insufficient to establish a cause of action under Labor Law § 200” …, plaintiff submitted proof demonstrating that Hunt actually exercised supervisory control and directed his work. Specifically, plaintiff testified at his deposition that Larry Smith, Hunt’s engineering technician assigned to the project, was present at the work site each day when he arrived and that he would consult with Smith regarding what work he was to perform and how he was to perform it. In addition, plaintiff considered Smith to be his boss and believed that Smith had the authority to control the method and manner of his work. According to plaintiff, on the first day of the job, he consulted with Smith regarding the proper method for performing the drain installation and sidewalk excavation. Although he advised Smith that the drain should be installed before removing the existing sidewalk, Smith disagreed and instructed him to remove the existing sidewalk first. Notwithstanding Hunt’s assertions that it had no contractual authority to halt work or remedy a dangerous condition, the record reveals that Smith was aware of the condition of the work site and, in fact, participated in the decision to shut down the work site on the day prior to the accident due to inclement weather… . Moreover, Smith conceded that he had the authority to stop the work if, in his opinion, it was not being carried on in a safe manner. This evidence was sufficient to create an issue of fact as to whether Hunt exercised the requisite supervisory or safety control over plaintiff’s work on the property so as to preclude summary judgment on the negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims …
With respect to plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, to the extent that it is predicated upon a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d), … we find that Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants. Labor Law § 241 (6) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners, contractors and their agents to provide adequate protection and safety for workers and, to establish a claim under this section, plaintiff must allege that defendants violated a rule or regulation promulgated by the Commissioner of Labor that sets forth a specific standard of conduct … . 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) provides, in pertinent part, that no employee shall be permitted “to use a floor, passageway, walkway, scaffold, platform or other elevated working surface which is in a slippery condition” and requires the removal of any “[i]ce, snow, water, grease and any other foreign substance which may cause slippery footing.”

Here, plaintiff slipped on mud that had accumulated on the battery cover of the backhoe and fell approximately four feet to the ground. The battery cover served as a step and was the only means of access to the cab. While the cover previously had foot treads on it, they had worn away. Thus, the uncontroverted evidence established that the battery cover constituted a passageway that plaintiff was required to use in order to access his equipment … . Notably, responsibility under Labor Law § 241 (6) extends not only to the area where the work was actually being conducted, but to the entire construction site, including passageways and platforms, in order to insure the safety of workers going to and from the points of actual work … . Furthermore, contrary to Wegmans’ contention, the mud on the backhoe’s battery cover upon which plaintiff slipped was a “foreign substance” within the meaning of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) … .”

Fassett v Wegmans Food Mkts., Inc. 2009 NY Slip Op 07712 Decided on October 29, 2009 Appellate Division, Third Department

**And by the way, Wegmans is a great grocery store+. Carol and I went out of our way, when driving to her parents in Luray Va., to go to a Wegmans. The closest ones to The City are in these towns in New Jersey; Woodbridge, Ocean, Manalapan, Bridgewater, and Princeton. It is definitely worth a visit