New Developments In
New York Labor Law Sections
200, 240 & 241
Stephen Wellinghorst, Esquire
Wellinghorst & Fronzuto, L.L.C.
4 Franklin Avenue
Ridgewood, N.J. 07450
(201) 251-0046
New York Office:
10 Potter Lane
Suffern, N.Y. 10901
Table of Contents




New York Labor Law Section 200
New York Labor Law Section 240
New York Labor Law Section 241
Contribution and Indemnification Issues
New York Labor Law Section 200
Purpose
 Section 200 merely codifies common-law
duty of owner or general contractor to
provide safe place for workers at
construction site.
New York Labor Law Section 200
History and Evolution
 Employer originally had a common law duty
to provide a safe workplace.
 Section 200 extended the common law by
including within “workplace”, tools and
appliances.
 Section 200 has also made the duty nondelegable.
New York Labor Law Section 200
Application of Section 200
 Section 200 only applies where there is
actual or constructive notice of an alleged
dangerous condition and control by an
entity.
 EVERYONE GETS SUED!!
New York Labor Law Section 200
Issues Relating to Direction and
Control
 Generally, Section 200 only applies to entities who are able
to exercise control over work.
 Party charged with violation of Section 200 must be shown
to have exercised sufficient control over work being
performed to have been in position to correct or avoid
unsafe condition. Rosas v Ishack, 631 N.Y.S.2d 417 (2nd
Dept. 1995).
 Defendant was entitled to summary judgment in action
under Section 200 since its contract with owner was limited
to demolition and construction of 2 walls, without any right
to control worksite. Saaverda v East Fordham Rd. Real
Estate Corp., 649 N.Y.S.2d 416 (1st Dept. 1996).
New York Labor Law Section 200
Notice Issues
 The common-law duty to provide a safe
place to work is embodied in subdivision 1
of Section 200 and to be charged with
negligence for breach of this duty, an owner
must have notice, either constructive or
actual, of the dangerous condition which
caused the accident.
New York Labor Law Section 200
Notice Issues, Continued
 There is no liability under Section 200 where the
alleged dangerous condition is open and obvious.
 See e.g. Panetta v. Paramount Communs., 681
N.Y.S.2d 85 (2nd Dept. 1998). Liability for
common-law negligence and violation of Section
200 did not attach, because dangerous condition
complained of was open and obvious, where
plaintiff hit his head on overhead pipe that was
part of scaffolding at work site.
New York Labor Law Section 240
Statute
 All contractors and owners (with the
exception of single and two family
homeowners) who are performing erection,
demolition, repairing, altering, painting or
cleaning of a building shall be required to
furnish scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders
and other devices to all persons performing
such work.
New York Labor Law Section 240
Purpose and Requirements
 The purpose of this law is to protect workers
engaged in construction activities involving heights
by mandating the use of protective equipment and
charging the responsibility for provision of such
equipment to the owner of the site. The law
exempts single and two family homeowners from
its applicability unless such are exercising control
over the work. Also exempt are professional
engineers and architects so long as they are not
directing the work being performed.
New York Labor Law Section 240
Purpose and Requirements,
Continued
 In addition, the law requires that scaffolding
over 20 feet high is mandated to have a
safety rail that is at least 34 inches above
the floor of the platform and must be
fastened to avoid swaying. Finally, all
scaffolding must be able to bear weight four
times that which will be placed on it when in
use.
New York Labor Law Section 240
History and Evolution
 The law’s origins trace back to 1885 which made
the failure to provide scaffolding a misdemeanor
for the employer. It has been amended multiple
times over the years to increase the scope of the
statute and protection afforded to the workers. In
1921, it was amended to require lings, hangers,
blocks, pulleys, braces, irons and ropes as well as
the original requirements of scaffolding.
New York Labor Law Section 240
History and Evolution, Continued
 The duties imposed under the statute are
non-delegable and an owner or general
contractor will not escape liability by
delegating the responsibility to other
contractors or subcontractors. See e.g. Kelly
v. Diesel Construction, 35 N.Y.2d 1 (1974),
Rocha v. State of New York, 45 A.D.2d 633
(3d Dept. 1974)
New York Labor Law Section 240
History and Evolution, Continued
 Section 240 was intended by legislature to
place ultimate responsibility for building
practices on property owners and
contractors not the workers who are
scarcely in a position to protect themselves
from accidents. Lombardi v. Stout, 80 N.Y.2d
290 (1992). (Because the unions in New
York are so weak.)
New York Labor Law Section 240
History and Evolution, Continued
 Liability is mandated against an owner or
contractor who fails to provide appropriate
safety devices, regardless of what the terms
of the contract provide or what the custom
and practice in the construction industry
may be. If evidence establishes absence of
safety devices, Section 240 has been
violated. Zimmer v. Chemung County
Performing Arts, 65 N.Y.2d 513 (1985)
New York Labor Law Section 240
Liability of Particular Entities
 Although the law exempts single and two
family homeowners from its applicability
unless such are exercising control over the
work. Also exempt are professional
engineers and architects so long as they are
not directing the work being performed.
However, such persons can still be held
liable under common law or other provisions
of the law.
New York Labor Law Section 240
Activities Covered by Statute
Injury Related to Force of Gravity
 ROCOVICH V. CONSOLIDATED EDISON, 78
N.Y.2d 509 (1991) CASE INVOLVED ROOFER
WORKING ON A ROOF WHO SLIPPED AND
FELL INTO 12” TROUGH WHICH RAN ALONG
THE ROOFLINE. PLAINTIFF ARGUED THAT
THERE WAS SOME ELEVATION THUS
SECTION 240 APPLIED. COURT HELD THAT 12
INCH ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL DID NOT
MANDATE USE OF PROTECTIVE DEVICES
UNDER SECTION 240. 12” NOT ENOUGH TO
TRIGGER SECTION 240.
New York Labor Law Section 240
Activities Covered by Statute
Injury Related to Force of Gravity
 COURT ESTABLISHED APPLICATION OF
STATUTE WHEN: DIFFERENCE IN HEIGHT
BETWEEN WORKER AND LEVEL BELOW
WORKER OR WHEN DIFFERENCE IN HEIGHT
BETWEEN WORKER AND MATERIALS BEING
HOISTED OR SECURED ABOVE WORKER.
 COURT ALSO RULED THE HEIGHT ALONE IS
NOT THE SOLE CRITERIA FOR APPLICATION
OF SECTION 240.
 APPLICABILITY DETERMINED CASE BY CASE.
New York Labor Law Section 240
Activities Covered by Statute
Special Hazard
 AlROSS V. CURTIS PALMER, 81 N.Y.2d 494 (1993)
COURT EXPANDED ROCOVICH TO REQUIRE THAT
INJURY MUST HAVE A DIRECT CONNECTION TO
DANGERS POSED BY RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH
GRAVITY BEFORE LIABILITY ATTACHES (PLAINTIFF
WORKING ON SCAFFOLDING BUT DID NOT FALL
FROM SUCH).
 COURT HELD THAT SECTION 240 WAS DESIGNED TO
PREVENT THOSE TYPES OF ACCIDENTS IN WHICH
THE SCAFFOLD ETC PROVED INADEQUATE TO
SHIELD THE WORKER FROM HARM.
New York Labor Law Section 240
Activities Covered by Statute
Special Hazard
 NARDUCCI V. MANHASSET BAY ASSOCIATES,
96 N.Y.2d (2001) PLAINTIFF INJURED WHEN
GLASS FELL UPON HIM WHILE STANDING ON
A LADDER; COURT FOUND THE LIABILITY
UNDER SECTION 240 CONTINGENT UPON THE
EXISTENCE OF A HAZARD CONTEMPLATED
BY THE STATUTE. AS SUCH, FALLING
OBJECTS WOULD BE COVERED UNDER
SECTION 240 IF RELATED TO ITEMS BEING
HOISTED OR SECURED OR IF IT IS PART OF
BUILDING BEING WORKED ON.
New York Labor Law Section 240
Activities Covered by Statute
Height Specifications
 SECTION 240 DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR HEIGHT
SPECIFICATION FOR APPLICABILITY OF STATUTE
 THOMPSON V. ST. CHARLES CONDOMINIUMS, 756
N.Y.S.2d 530 (1ST Dept. 2003) PLAINTIFF WAS MASON
TENDER WHO PLACED BRICKS AND MORTAR ON
FOUR FOOT HIGH SAWHORSE SCAFFOLD FOR BRICK
LAYER TO USE. BRICK LAYER CLIMBED SCAFFOLD
WHICH COLLAPSED AND BLOCK FELL ON PLAINTIFF
ON GROUND. COURT HELD THAT THERE IS NO DE
MINIMUS HEIGHT FOR SECTION 240 TO APPLY.
COURT FOUND APPLICABILITY OF 240 BECAUSE OF
FAILURE OF PRESENCE OF SAFETY DEVISE RATHER
THAN HEIGHT.
New York Labor Law Section 240
Activities Covered by Statute
Typical Hazards
 COURTS HAVE FOUND APPLICABILITY
OF SECTION 240 IN THE FOLLOWING
SITUATIONS:
– ELEVATED RAMPS
– FIRE ESCAPE LADDER FALL OFF BUILDING
– PAINTING DIVING BOARD OF POOL
– LADDERS (BOTH SECURED AND
UNSECURED)
New York Labor Law Section 240
Devices Involved with Statute
Trucks
 COURT DETERMINED THAT FALLING
FROM A CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE IS
NOT AN ELEVATED RISK
CONTEMPLATED BY SECTION 240
(BOND V. YORK HUNTER
CONSTRUCTION, 95 N.Y.2d 993 (2000).
New York Labor Law Section 240
Devices Involved with Statute
Trucks
 CASES ALSO HOLD THAT LOADING AND
UNLOADING OF TRUCKS IS NOT ELEVATED
RISK UNDER SECTION 240 (CABEZAS V. CON
ED, 296 A.D.2d 522 (2d Dept. 2002))
 MOST CASES INVOLVING TRUCKS ARE
RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS
UNLESS TRUCK BEING USED AS PLATFORM
TO PERFORM ELEVATED WORK.
New York Labor Law Section 240
Devices Involved with Statute
Stairways and Fixed Structures
 COURTS HAVE CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT SECTION
240 DOES NOT APPLY TO SLIP AND FALLS IN
STAIRWAYS AS STAIRS ARE NOT CONSIDERED
SAFETY DEVICES IF PERMANENT PART OF BUILDING
(MILANESE V. KELLERMAN, 41 A.D.3D 1058 (3D DEPT.
2007)
 THE CONTROLLING FACTOR IN THESE CASES IS NOT
WHETHER THE DEVICE IS PERMANENT BUT
WHETHER IT SERVES THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING
AN ELEVATED PLATFORM. (SOMETIMES STAIRS ARE
CONSIDERED ELEVATED WORK PLATFORMS.)
New York Labor Law Section 240
Devices Involved with Statute
Elevators
 GENERALLY, SECTION 240 WILL NOT
APPLY EVEN THOUGH ELEVATORS ARE
INHERENTLY HEIGHT RELATED.
New York Labor Law Section 240
Risks Covered by Statute
 SECTION 240 RELATES NOT ONLY TO
CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING BUT
DEMOLITION, REPAIR, ALTERATION,
CLEANING AND OTHER MAINTENCE
RELATED WORK
New York Labor Law Section 240
Risks Covered by Statute,
Continued
 BUSTAMANTE V. CHASE MANHATTAN, 241
A.D.2d 327 (1ST Dept. 1997) PLAINTIFF FELL
OFF LADDER WHEN CLEANING TOPS OF
PARTITIONS; SECTION 240 APPLICABLE.
 VERNUM V. ZILKA, 241 A.D.2d 885 (3d Dept.
1997) PLAINTIFF SHOVELING SNOW OFF
ROOF CONSIDERED CLEANING AND SECTION
240 APPLICABLE WHEN INJURY OCCURRED.
New York Labor Law Section 240
Risks Covered by Statute
Alteration of Premises
 COURT RULINGS ON THIS TYPE OF
WORK HAVE FOUND THAT SECTION 240
IS APPLICABLE IF THE WORK BEING
PERFORMED RESULTS IN A
SUBSTANTIAL PHYSICAL CHANGE TO
THE BUILDING OR ITS COMPONENTS
(JOBLON V. SOLO, 91 N.Y.2d 457 (2004)).
New York Labor Law Section 240
Risks Covered by Statute
Work Associated with
Construction
 CASES FIND APPLICATION OF SECTION 240 IN
SUCH SITUATIONS AS REPAIRING BACK HOE
DURING CONSTRUCTION OF PIPELINE
(COVEY V. IROQUOIS GAS, 89 N.Y.2d. 952
(1997)), INSPECTION OF CONSTRUCTION SITE
(MCMANN V. HSM PACKING CORP., 755
N.Y.S.2d 186 (4TH Dept. 2004), PERFORMANCE
OF SECURITY GUARD DUTIES (SPAULDING V.
BAY RIDGE, 759 N.Y.S.2d 179 (2d Dept. 2005).
New York Labor Law Section 240
Risks Covered by Statute
Repair and Maintenance
 GENERALLY, ROUTINE MAINTENANCE IS NOT
COVERED UNDER SECTION 240 UNLESS IT IS
AN INTEGRAL PART OF SOME OTHER
COVERED ACTIVITY I.E. MAINTENCE WORKER
INJURED IN ACTIVE CONSTUCTION SITE.
New York Labor Law Section 240
Liabilities of Particular Entities
 SECTION 240 IS A CATEGORY OF PREMISES
LIABILITY. ABSENT A SHOWING THAT
DEFENDANT COULD NOT CONTROL THE
ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH PLAINTIFF’S
WORK, LIABILITY CANNOT ATTACH.
HOWEVER, IF WORK BEING DONE IS
INTEGRAL AND NECESSARY TO THE
CONTEMPLATED CONSTRUCTION, IT IS
COVERED.
New York Labor Law Section 240
Liabilities of Particular Entities,
Continued
 SECTION 240 APPLIES TO ALL
CONTRACTORS, OWNERS AND THEIR
AGENTS WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE
DEMOLITION, CONSTRUTION, REPAIR OF
BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES. APPLIES TO
ALL OWNERS REGARDLESS OF DEGREE OF
CONTROL OR EVEN WHETHER OWNER
CONTRACTED FOR WORK OR BENEFITTED
FROM IT (GORDON V. EASTERN RAILWAY
SUPPLY, 82 N.Y.2d 555 (1993)).
New York Labor Law Section 240
Liabilities of Particular Entities,
Continued
 STATUTE WILL NOT APPLY IF
PERFORMED WITHOUT CONSENT, IN
VIOLATION OF LEASE AND STATUTE
(SANATASS V. CONSOLIDATED
INVESTING CO., 38 A.D.3d 332 (1ST Dept.
2007)).
New York Labor Law Section 240
Liabilities of Particular Entities,
Continued
 SECTION 240 IS NON-DELEGABLE FOR
GENERAL CONTRACTORS. CONSTRUCTION
MANAGERS MAY BE HELD LIABLE IF HAVE
DUTY TO CONTROL THE WORK GIVING RISE
TO THE INJURY (KENNY V. GEORGE A FULLER
CO., 87 A.D. 183 (2d Dept. 1982); PINO V.
IRVINGTON UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT,
43 A.D.3d 1130 (2d Dept. 2007)).
New York Labor Law Section 240
Liabilities of Particular Entities,
Continued
 INDEPENDENT PRIME CONTRACTORS NOT
LIABLE UNDER SECTION 240 FOR INJURIES
SUSTAINED OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF WORK
INCLUDED IN CONTRACT. SAME APPLIES TO
SUBCONTRACTORS ON A PROJECT
(AVERSANO V. JWH CONTRACTING LLC., 37
A.D.3d 745 (2d. Dept. 2007)).
(BUT GOOD LUCK GETTING OUT ONCE YOUR
COMPANY IS NAMED.)
New York Labor Law Section 240
Defenses Available
Plaintiff’s Own Conduct
 IF ACTIONS OF PLAINTIFF ARE SOLE
PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INJURY,
SECTION 240 INAPPLICABLE
(WEININGER V HAEDORN, 91 N.Y.2d 958
(2004)). HOWEVER, VERY FACT
SPECIFIC AND COURTS DO NOT LIKE TO
RULE THIS WAY.
New York Labor Law Section 240
Defenses Available
Provision of Safety Equipment
 PLAINTIFF INJURY WOULD NOT HAVE
OCCURRED IF USED SAFETY EQUIPMENT
PROVIDED (LENIAR V. METRO TRANSIT
AUTHORITY, 37 A.D.3d 425 (2d Dept. 2007))
 GENERALLY QUESTION OF WHETHER
SAFETY DEVICE WAS ADEQUATE IS
QUESTION OF FACT UNLESS ESTABLISHED
AS MATTER OF LAW THAT COLLAPSED, WAS
DEFECTIVE OR WAS IMPROPERLY PLACED
(NORWOOD V. WHITING-TURNER
CONSTRUCTION, 40 A.D.3d 718 (2d Dept. 2007))
New York Labor Law Section 240
Defenses Available
Recalcitrant Worker
 WHEN DEFENDANT CAN SHOW THAT
ACCIDENT SOLELY CAUSED BY
REFUSAL OF PLAINTIFF TO USE SAFETY
EQUIPMENT, SECTION 240
INAPPLICABLE (SMITH V. HOOKER, 89
A.D.2d. 361); CHIMBORAZO V. WCL
ASSOCIATES, 37 A.D.3d 394 (2d. Dept.
2007)).
New York Labor Law Section 240
Defenses Available
Superseding Cause
 PROVISION OF EVIDENCE THAT EVENT
CAUSING PLAINTIFF INJURY NOT
FORSEEABLE; HANDLED BY COURT IN
SAME MANNER AS TYPICAL
NEGLIGENCE MATTERS.
New York Labor Law Section 240
Defenses Available
Engineer and Architect Exception
 SECTION 240 INAPPLICABLE TO THESE
PERSONS SO LONG AS NOT DIRECTING
OR CONTROLLING WORK ACTIVITIES
(HAMBY V. HIGH STEEL STRUCTURES
INC., 134 A.D.2D 884 (4TH Dept. 2004)).
New York Labor Law Section 240
Summary Judgment and Dismissal
 CONSTRUCTION MANAGER ENTITLED
TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHEN ROLE
WAS ONLY ONE OF GENERAL
SUPERVISION (DELAHAYE V. ST. ANNE’S
SCHOOL, 40 A.D.3d 679 (2d Dept. 2007))
New York Labor Law Section 240
Summary Judgment and Dismissal,
Continued
 GENERAL CONTRACTOR ENTITLED TO
SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHEN PLAINTIFF
ACCIDENT NOT PROXIMATELY CAUSED
BY STATUTE VIOLATION AND PLAINTIFF
FAILED TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO RAISE QUESTION OF
FACT (CAMLICA V. HANSSON, 40 A.D.3d
796 (2d Dept. 2007)).
New York Labor Law Section 240
Evidentiary Issues
 INCIDENT REPORT MIGHT BE ADMITTED
AS A BUSINDESS RECORD AT TRIAL
(BUCKLEY V. J.A. JONES/GMO, 38 A.D.3D
461 (1ST Dept. 2007). (I PREFER THAT
INCIDENT REPORTS ARE PREPARED.)
New York Labor Law Section 241
Purpose
 241 imposes nondelegable duty upon all owners
and contractors to provide certain safe
appurtenances, and safe place to work, for all of
employees at construction site
 apparent intention of legislature to place ultimate
responsibility for injury on those who are in best
position to insure safety of work place
 owner's duty to insure that scaffolding employed at
work site is constructed, placed, and operated so
as to give proper protection to employees is wholly
independent of owner's actual control or
supervision of workplace
New York Labor Law Section 241
History and Evolution
 Prior to 1962 the section was phrased in
language substantially the same as that
appearing today.
 In 1962 the Legislature made direction or
control a prerequisite to strict liability.
 However, in 1969 the section was amended
as it now appears with a reimposition of the
rule of strict liability.
New York Labor Law Section 241
History and Evolution, Continued
 Owners of one and two family dwellings are
exempted from the strict liability of Section
241 where they exercise no direction or
control.
 Owners of one and two family dwellings will,
of course, be liable in any situation where
they direct or control the work, or where
negligence may otherwise be proved
against them.
New York Labor Law Section 241
Application of Section 241
 Applicable to “Construction, excavation, or demolition
work”.
 Legislature sought to protect workers from industrial
accidents specifically in connection with construction,
demolition, or excavation work. If the work constitutes
“maintenance”, then plaintiff is not entitled to base a claim
under Section 241. Nagel v. D&R Realty Corp., 99 N.Y.2d.
98 (Ct. of App. 2002).
 If defendant can show that plaintiff’s injuries did not arise
from construction, excavation or demolition work, then
defendant is entitled to a dismissal of plaintiff’s Section 241
claims. See e.g. Holler v. City of New York, 38 App. Div. 3d
606 (2nd Dept. 2007).
New York Labor Law Section 241
Application of Section 241,
Continued
 There must be “control, direction, and
supervision”.
 If the owner or general contractor does not
exercise authority or supervisory control
over the work site, plaintiff’s Section 241
claims may be dismissed. See e.g. Berg v.
Albany Ladder Co., Inc., 836 N.Y.S.2d 720
(3rd Dept. 2007), and Burnett v. Waterford
Custom Homes, Inc., 838 N.Y.S.2d 286 (4th
Dept. 2007).
New York Labor Law Section 241
Violations of Local Code as a Means
of Liability
 Plaintiff must establish a causal connection
between the code violated and the happening of
the accident.
 Violation of the code must be a substantial factor
in the happening of the accident.
 Whether rule applies to the facts is a threshold
issue to be addressed by the court as a matter of
law.
 Whether the code was violated and was a
proximate cause of the accident will generally be a
question of fact to be determined by a jury.
New York Labor Law Section 241
Violations of Local Code as a Means
of Liability, Continued
 See e.g. Kreamer v. Amsterdam High
School, 716 N.Y.S.2d 452 (3rd Dept. 2000).
Court held that code was applicable and
was violated. The violation was a proximate
cause of plaintiff’s injury.
New York Labor Law Section 241
Notice Issues
 As a general rule, lack of actual or
constructive notice of a dangerous condition
is not a defense to a claim under Section
241. See e.g. Amirr v Calcagno Constr. Co.,
684 N.Y.S.2d 280 (2nd Dept. 1999), and
Rizzuto v L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 670
N.Y.S.2d 816 (1998).
New York Labor Law Section 241
Summary Judgment Issues
 Where a factual issue or dispute exists, summary
judgment must be denied.
 Where there is no evidence of control, direction or
supervision, summary judgment is appropriate.
See e.g. Delahaye v. Saint Anns School, 836
N.Y.S.2d 233 (2nd Dept. 2007). Court held that
construction manager entitled to summary
judgment as the record demonstrated that the role
of the construction manager was only one of
general supervision, which was insufficient to
impose liability.
New York Labor Law Section 241
Covered Activities and People
 Section 241 covers work which involves
“construction or excavation”.
 Injury which occurs while performing activity not
involved in construction or excavation is not
covered by section 241. See e.g. Malczewski v
Cannon Design, Inc., 510 N.Y.S.2d 339 (4th Dept.
1986). Court held that employee injured while
moving computer equipment was not performing
construction or excavation, and section 241 did
not apply.
New York Labor Law Section 241
Covered Activities and People
 Protection of Section 241 extends to employees
present at worksite, even if they are not engaged
in actual construction. Williamson v Borg Florman
Dev. Corp., 594 N.Y.S.2d 778 (1st Dept. 1993).
 Neither plaintiff's allegedly improper conduct in
obtaining his employment nor his status as illegal
alien barred him from maintaining suit for personal
injuries based on asserted violations of Section
241. Mazur v Rock-McGraw, Inc., 666 N.Y.S.2d
939 (2nd Dept. 1998).
New York Labor Law Section 241
Covered Activities and People,
Continued
 Plaintiff, employee of company retained by
construction manager to inspect steel work and
fireproofing at construction project, was person
entitled to protection of Section 241 where he went
to construction site to inspect steel columns for
rust, dirt, or other materials which might prevent
fireproofing from adhering to steel surface.
Crowther v City of New York, 692 N.Y.S.2d 439
(2nd Dept. 1999).
New York Labor Law Section 241
Covered Activities and People,
Continued
 General contractor and gas company were
entitled to dismissal of cause of action under
Section 241 to recover for injuries sustained
in slip and fall on gravel during
disembarkation from bus at intersection that
was under construction since bus passenger
is not member of special class of persons
protected by statute. Neely v Buffalo, 569
N.Y.S.2d 252 (4th Dept. 1991).
New York Labor Law Section 241
Covered Activities and People,
Continued
 Night watchman who fell through opening in
floor at building owned by his employer,
which was undergoing renovations, was not
entitled to protection under Section 241.
Blandon v Advance Contr. Co., 695 N.Y.S.2d
36 (1st Dept. 1999).
New York Labor Law Section 241
Covered Activities and People,
Continued
 Non-employees are typically not a person
“employed” within the meaning of Section 241.
See e.g. Tobias v DiFazio Elec., Inc., 732 N.Y.S.2d
441(2nd Dept. 2001).
 Volunteers typically are not covered by Section
241. See e.g. Alver v. Duarte, 439 N.Y.S.2d 501
(3rd Dept. 1981). (Holding section 241, pertaining
to the duty to provide a safe place of employment,
does not furnish a cause of action to a man who
fell from a porch roof while working on a volunteer
basis without pay in assisting his daughter and
son-in-law with construction of a house.)
New York Labor Law Section 241
Liability of Particular Entities Under
the Statute - Owner
 Generally, Section 241 applies to owner of
land and/or building.
 Liability under Section 241 lies against
owner of land on which building is located,
notwithstanding that owner may not own
building itself. Cannino v Locust Valley Fire
Dist., 661 N.Y.S.2d 240 (2nd Dept. 1997).
New York Labor Law Section 241
Liability of Particular Entities Under
the Statute - Homeowner
 Generally, Section 241 does not apply to owners of one
and two family dwellings unless owner directs or controls
the work.
 See e.g. Pesa v. Ginsberg, 589 N.Y.S.2d 330 (1st Dept.
1992). Owner of single-family dwelling was properly
granted summary judgment dismissing action under
Section 241 brought by painter who was injured while
attempting to move furniture in course of performing
painting contract since offering suggestions, lending tools,
pointing out areas that need to be painted, and selecting
paint to be used was insufficient to cast homeowner in
liability.
New York Labor Law Section 241
Liability of Particular Entities Under
the Statute – General Contractor
 Typically a general contractor and owner are
vicariously liable under Section 241 without
regard to their own fault.
 General contractor has a duty to comply
with all applicable codes and regulations
regarding the construction project.
 See e.g. Farina v Plaza Constr. Co., 655
N.Y.S.2d 952 (1st Dept. 1997).
New York Labor Law Section 241
Liability of Particular Entities Under
the Statute – Subcontractor
 Although Section 241 does not expressly
apply to subcontractors, if subcontractor is
delegated authority to supervise and control
work he/she thus became statutory agent of
contractor. See e.g. Leon v J & M Peppe
Realty Corp., 596 N.Y.S.2d 380 (1st Dept.
1993).
New York Labor Law Section 241
Liability of Particular Entities Under
the Statute – Governmental Entity
 Section 241 does not apply to governmental
entities where the entity does not own the property
in question and does not supervise or control the
construction.
 See e.g. Kowalska v Board of Educ., 688 N.Y.S.2d
598 (2nd Dept 1999). Court held that N.Y. Board of
Education was not liable for plaintiff’s injuries
because the Board did not own the property and
the construction project was under control of
authority that was not party to action.
Contribution and Indemnification,
Generally
 LABOR LAW 240 AND 241 IMPOSE A
NON-DELEGABLE DUTY ON ALL
CONTRACTORS, OWNERS AND THEIR
AGENTS. DUTY CAN BE ASSIGNED TO
ANOTHER BUT LIABILITY TO INJURED
WORKER STILL REMAINS WITH THE
CONTRACTOR, OWNERS AND THEIR
AGENTS.
Contribution and Indemnification,
Generally
 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF
PLAINTIFF IS NOT A DEFENSE AS
STATUTE IMPOSES ABSOLUTE LIABILITY
ON OWNER TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE
SAFETY DEVICES (LAFLEUR V.
CONSOLIDATED EDISON, 245 A.D.2d 36
(2d Dept. 2004)).
Indemnification
(The abyss)
 VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND SEEKING REIMBURSMENT
FROM THE ULTIMATE WRONGDOER
 UNDER CPLR SECTION 14, OWNER HAS LEGAL RIGHT
TO REIMBURSMENT FOR DAMAGES TO PLAINTIFF
FROM ALL CONTRACTORS WHO ASSUMED
RESPONSIBILITY TO PERFORM WORK GIVING RISE
TO PLAINTIFF INJURY (MAS V. TWO BRIDGES
ASSOCIATION, 75 N.Y.2d 680 (1998)). OWNER MUST BE
ZERO LIABLE.
 FOR COMMON LAW INDEMNIFICATION, SEE NASSAU
ROOFING AND SHEET METAL CO V. FACILITIES DEV.
CORP., 125 A.D.2D 754 (2d. Dept. 2002).