Plaintiff MP, a masonry worker, was injured while performing his duties at a worksite. To access a wet saw that had been elevated—placed inside a plastic tub atop cinder blocks to address a tenant's concerns about water runoff—MP utilized a makeshift platform consisting of two stacked wooden pallets. While standing on this improvised structure, one of the wooden slats beneath him gave way, causing him to lose his balance and fall approximately 10½ to 20 inches to the ground.
The plaintiffs commenced litigation, asserting claims based on common-law negligence and violations of New York Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The motion court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims except the Labor Law § 241(6) claim predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.5(c)(3), and denied plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action.
Upon appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court’s ruling. The panel concluded that plaintiffs were entitled to partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1) because MP’s injury resulted from an elevation-related hazard. It emphasized that the height differential, though modest, was legally significant and not de minimis. The court referenced a series of precedents in which similar falls—often from temporary or makeshift platforms, such as overturned buckets or low ramps—had supported liability under § 240(1). Notably, the general contractor’s own superintendent acknowledged that the pallet structure constituted an “improper work platform,” in contravention of basic safety protocols.
With respect to the plaintiffs' claims under common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200, the appellate court affirmed dismissal. The injury was attributable to the method and means of MP’s work, rather than any dangerous condition of the premises. Moreover, there was insufficient evidence to show that the general contractor exercised supervisory control over the plaintiff’s specific work activities, which is necessary to establish liability under § 200.
Finally, in light of the resolution of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim in plaintiffs’ favor, the court deemed the remaining arguments under Labor Law § 241(6) academic and declined to address them further.
There was no throwing out his case with the tub water ....
# # #
DECISION