Peterkin v Westchester Parks Foundation, Inc.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Application of New York Labor Law § 240(1) [imposes a nondelegable duty on owners, general contractors, and their agents to provide safety devices protecting workers from elevation-related risks while engaged in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning, or pointing of a building or structure] to tree-cutting work performed near preparations for a holiday light show.
The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, denied both the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the § 240(1) claim and the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability under § 240(1).
The Appellate Division reversed the denial of the defendant's motion and granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action.
Tree cutting and removal are generally not covered by § 240(1) because a tree is not a building or structure, and here the work was routine maintenance outside a construction or renovation context. Deposition testimony showed the crew was performing normal pruning/cleanup, and the record did not support that the tree work was necessary to complete a larger construction project for the holiday display.
Background
On October 22, 2018, a Westchester County Department of Parks employee (the plaintiff) was working from an elevated bucket truck cutting a tree at Kensico Dam Plaza when he was struck by a portion of the tree he had just cut. Around the same time, Department employees were setting up a holiday light show to benefit Westchester Parks Foundation, Inc. The plaintiff alleged the tree cutting was integral to erecting a scaffold system and mounting a large artificial star for the display, asserting liability under Labor Law § 240(1).
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) claim and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability under that statute.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division reversed insofar as appealed from, granted the defendant summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, and affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion. The court awarded one bill of costs to the defendant.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that routine tree cutting/pruning, even when performed near or contemporaneously with preparations for a public event, is not within the ambit of § 240(1) absent a nexus to the erection, alteration, or similar work on a building or structure. The decision underscores the need for a construction/renovation context or direct involvement with a qualifying structure for § 240(1) to apply.
Injury sustained while pruning or removing trees from a bucket truck is not actionable under Labor Law § 240(1) unless the work is tied to the erection, alteration, or similar work on a building or structure; routine maintenance remains outside the statute.