Oliveira v Rockaway Village Housing Development Fund Corporation
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction site trip-and-fall claims under Labor Law § 241(6) [imposes on owners and contractors a nondelegable duty to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to persons employed in, or lawfully frequenting, all areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed] and Labor Law § 200 [codification of the common-law duty of owners, contractors, and their agents to provide workers with a safe place to work], premised on alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2) [Industrial Code provision addressing tripping hazards from debris, dirt, scattered tools, and materials in working areas].
Granted defendants summary judgment dismissing common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, and the Labor Law § 241(6) claim insofar as predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2).
The Appellate Division reversed and denied those branches of the motion, reinstating the negligence, Labor Law § 200, and the 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2) predicate under Labor Law § 241(6).
Defendants failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2) due to alleged accumulation of debris, dirt, scattered tools, and materials; they also did not establish that the shovel was an integral part of plaintiff’s work. As to Labor Law § 200/common-law negligence, defendants did not demonstrate lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition.
Background
In May 2020, plaintiff, an RC Structures employee, allegedly tripped over a shovel on a construction site owned by Rockaway Village Housing Development Fund Corporation and overseen by general contractor Lettire Construction Corp. He sued for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6), alleging unsafe site conditions including scattered tools and debris.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted defendants summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, and dismissed the Labor Law § 241(6) claim to the extent it relied on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2).
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversed with costs. The court held defendants failed to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law because evidence, including plaintiff’s deposition, did not eliminate issues of fact as to a 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2) violation and whether the shovel was an integral part of the work. For the Labor Law § 200/common-law negligence claims, defendants failed to show they lacked constructive notice of the dangerous condition on the premises.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that owners and general contractors face potential liability under Labor Law § 241(6) for tripping hazards from scattered tools and debris under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2), and that the “integral part of the work” defense is fact-intensive. For Labor Law § 200 claims premised on a dangerous premises condition, defendants must establish lack of creation or notice to win summary judgment.
Summary judgment is inappropriate where evidence leaves factual disputes about debris/tool accumulation under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2), whether the object was integral to the work, and whether defendants had constructive notice of a dangerous condition.