In Trujillo-Cruz v. City of New York, et al., New York Partner Inderjit Dhami, a member of New York Partner Meghan A. Cavalieri’s Construction Practice Team, recently obtained summary judgment and dismissal of the plaintiff’s Labor Law §240(1), §241(6) and §200 claims dismissing the entire case against national developer and construction company clients.

The plaintiff alleged to have sustained injuries as the result of a construction site accident occurring on July 11, 2018, while in the scope of his employment as a laborer in connection with the construction/renovation of a residential apartment building in Brooklyn, New York. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that he was injured when he was coming down from a ladder and fell on a 2”x 4”, causing him disabling injuries. The plaintiffs’ counsel articulated a $3 million settlement demand.

Labor Law §240(1) imposes absolute liability on a defendant where an injured worker engaged in the performance of covered construction work establishes that a safety device proved inadequate to shield him from elevation-related harm, and that the defendant’s failure to provide an adequate safety device proximately caused the injuries alleged. The plaintiff first testified that he stepped on the 2” x 4” after he came down off of the ladder, but his counsel then prompted him to recalibrate his testimony by asking whether the accident arose when he was coming down the ladder or after he had come down off of the ladder. The plaintiff changed his testimony, alleging that the accident arose as he was coming down the ladder and that he remained partially on the ladder when he stepped on the piece of formwork and fell. Inderjit argued that the plaintiff’s reframing of his deposition testimony was immaterial for purposes of the Labor Law § 240 (1) analysis. Irrespective of whether the plaintiff was on solid ground or had one foot on the ladder at the time of the occurrence, his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was unavailing in that the accident did not arise as a result of the type of extraordinary elevation-related peril protected by Labor Law § 240 (1). Justice Maslow agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) claims.

Regarding Labor Law 241(6), the plaintiff testified that he tripped over a 2” x 4” unsecured piece of debris. Inderjit argued that the subject 2” x 4” that the plaintiff alleged he tripped on was integral to the concrete form work taking place at the time of incident and thus could not be considered a violation of Industrial Code 1.7 (e) (tripping hazards). Specifically, Inderjit persuaded the Court that it was immaterial if the 2” x 4” was nailed and secured at the time of the accident. In the face of potentially contradictory precedent, the Court agreed with our understanding of the case law, that New York courts have held that whether an item is secured is immaterial to the issue of whether the item is integral to the work, citing to Lopez v Edge, 150 AD3d 1214, 1215 [2d Dept 2017].

Finally, with regards to Labor Law 200(1), the Court found that the defendants neither controlled nor supervised the means of the work, nor did they have any actual or constructive notice of the alleged defect. As such, the Court found that the plaintiff’s claims cannot survive under either a theory of Labor Law § 200 or common law negligence, and dismissed the claims on summary judgment.

The strict liability presented by the plaintiff’s New York Labor Law claims and serious injuries alleged by the plaintiff created significant exposure for the defendants. With this decision the plaintiff’s case is dismissed in its entirety. Trujillo-Cruz once again reminds the plaintiffs’ bar that despite their efforts to manipulate their clients testimony, even the broad application of New York Labor Law is not without its limits.