Capil Joseph v. Memorial Hospital for Cancer and Allied Diseases et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Scope of New York Labor Law § 241(6) [imposes a nondelegable duty on owners and contractors to comply with specific Industrial Code safety regulations] where a worker slipped on water in a dimly lit mechanical room of a building largely turned over and occupied; applicability of Industrial Code §§ 23-1.7(d) [requires floors and passageways to be kept free from slippery substances such as water] and 23-1.30 [requires adequate illumination of work areas at specified minimum levels].
Granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 241(6) based on Industrial Code §§ 23-1.7(d) and 23-1.30, and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss that claim.
The grant of plaintiff’s partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 241(6) and the court’s finding of a prima facie violation of Industrial Code § 23-1.30.
Issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiff was engaged in construction work where the project was essentially complete, turned over, and the mechanical room was suitable for occupancy; and the record showed the area was dim, not completely dark, rendering witnesses’ conclusory statements insufficient to establish a § 23-1.30 violation. Notice was sufficiently shown through the foreman’s presence, and § 23-1.7(d) applies to a floor, making the passageway issue academic.
Background
Plaintiff, a journeyman ironworker, slipped on a puddle from a leaking ceiling pipe in a dimly lit mechanical room while heading to the roof to install a window‑washing rig. The mechanical room, on the top floor and accessible only by elevator, had two doors to the roof. Plaintiff and coworkers first handled paperwork in a lit portion of the room; three coworkers, including the foreman, exited to the roof without incident. Plaintiff, the last to leave, slipped before reaching the door. Defendants’ project manager testified the project was not active construction as of June 2021, was essentially complete, had been turned over to Memorial Sloan‑Kettering Cancer Center (MSK), had a certificate of occupancy, and the mechanical room was suitable for occupancy. Evidence showed lights near the door were off but some light entered from the illuminated area and open door.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, New York County, granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 241(6) claim predicated on Industrial Code §§ 23-1.7(d) and 23-1.30, and denied MSK and Turner’s motion for summary judgment dismissing that claim.
Appellate Division Reversal
Modified to deny plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 241(6), holding there is a triable issue whether plaintiff was engaged in construction work given the building’s turnover and occupancy. It further held the record did not establish a prima facie violation of § 23-1.30 because the area, though dim, was not completely dark and witnesses’ statements were conclusory. The court otherwise affirmed, rejecting defendants’ notice argument based on the foreman’s presence and finding § 23-1.7(d) applicable to a floor, rendering the passageway question academic.
Legal Significance
Clarifies that Labor Law § 241(6) coverage may not extend to accidents occurring after substantial completion and turnover where the area is suitable for occupancy; dim lighting alone, without specific proof of illumination below the regulatory standard, does not establish a § 23-1.30 violation; a foreman’s traversal of the area moments before can supply notice; and § 23-1.7(d) applies to floors, not only passageways.
Plaintiffs seeking § 241(6) summary judgment must show active construction and concrete proof of a specific Industrial Code violation (e.g., illumination levels), while owners/contractors cannot avoid liability on notice where a foreman just used the area; post‑turnover status creates factual issues precluding plaintiff’s summary judgment.