Anthony Lacruise v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (David H. Koch Center) et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction site safety and premises liability under New York Labor Law § 200 [codifies the common-law duty to provide a safe workplace] and Labor Law § 241(6) [imposes a nondelegable duty on owners and contractors to comply with specific Industrial Code regulations], focusing on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7(e)(1) [requires passageways to be kept free of tripping hazards; interpreted as applying to interior passageways].
The trial court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the § 200 and § 241(6) claims and granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on both § 200 and § 241(6) based on § 23-1.7(e)(1).
The grant of summary judgment to plaintiff on the § 241(6) claim and the denial of defendants' motion on § 241(6).
The accident occurred outdoors on a roof setback, not in an interior 'passageway' under § 23-1.7(e)(1); plaintiff also abandoned reliance on any other Industrial Code provisions by failing to address them in opposition.
Background
Plaintiff, a construction worker at a building owned by Memorial Sloan-Kettering, was directed by his foreman to work on a 20th-floor outdoor roof setback. While walking to the area, he stepped into an uncovered drainage hole embedded in the roof slab and fell. Record evidence showed the hole was formed during or before the slab pour weeks before the accident, remained uncovered after curing and removal of formwork, and was visible and apparent. Turner's safety manager was required to inspect the site daily to ensure holes and floor openings were properly covered and marked.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, New York County denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200 and § 241(6) claims, and granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on both claims, relying on Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(1) for § 241(6). The court treated the incident as arising from a dangerous condition on the premises rather than the means and methods of work, obviating the need to show defendants' supervisory control for § 200, and found sufficient evidence of actual or constructive notice of the uncovered hole.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously modified: it granted defendants summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) claim and denied plaintiff's cross-motion on § 241(6) predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(1), because the outdoor accident did not occur in a 'passageway' and plaintiff abandoned other Industrial Code bases. It otherwise affirmed, including the denial of defendants' motion on § 200 and the grant of plaintiff's partial summary judgment on § 200, finding constructive notice given the visible, long-standing uncovered hole and daily safety inspection duties.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(1) is limited to interior passageways and does not cover outdoor walking areas, narrowing the scope of viable Labor Law § 241(6) claims in outdoor trip-and-fall scenarios. Confirms that when an injury stems from a dangerous premises condition (not means and methods), liability under § 200 turns on notice rather than supervisory control, and long-standing, visible hazards—especially where regular safety inspections are mandated—can establish constructive notice.
Outdoor trip-and-fall accidents on construction sites cannot rely on Industrial Code § 23-1.7(e)(1) for Labor Law § 241(6) liability, but a visible, long-present hazard like an uncovered hole can support § 200 liability based on constructive notice.