New York Supreme Court denies summary judgment in construction helper fall case

4 articles · Updated · Bloomberg Law · Apr 28

The court found triable issues regarding whether an unstable stack of concrete bars on a sidewalk bridge posed an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240(1).
However, summary judgment was granted to 510 East 86th Street Owners, Inc. on Labor Law § 200 and § 241(6) claims, as the owner lacked supervisory control and the cited code provisions were inapplicable.
The decision allows the Labor Law § 240(1) claim to proceed to trial, focusing on liability for elevation-related hazards in construction accidents.

Why does New York's 'Scaffold Law' hold owners liable even when they don't directly supervise the work?

When an unstable rebar stack causes a fall, is it a material failure or a legal one?

How does a 1981 hotel collapse explain modern construction lawsuits in New York today?

If an owner has no control, are they still responsible for gravity-related accidents on their property?

Could a simple plastic support, a 'rebar chair,' have prevented this entire lawsuit?