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

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

Yes. In New York, an owner can still be liable for gravity-related construction accidents even without direct control over the work, because Labor Law § 240(1) imposes a non-delegable duty on owners and contractors to provide proper protection against elevation-related risks. That is the key distinction in the 510 East 86th Street case. The court let the worker’s § 240(1) claim proceed because there is still a factual dispute over whether her fall on the sidewalk bridge, after concrete bars shifted beneath her, was caused by the kind of elevation-related hazard covered by the Scaffold Law. If it was, the owner’s lack of supervision would not automatically shield it from liability. By contrast, the court dismissed the worker’s Labor Law § 200 and § 241(6) claims. Those claims generally require proof of supervisory control, notice of a dangerous condition, or a violation of a sufficiently specific Industrial Code rule tied to the owner’s responsibilities. The court found those elements lacking here. So the practical answer is that “no control” can defeat ordinary negligence-style claims, but not necessarily a § 240(1) claim. Under that statute, owners may be held strictly liable if the injury flowed from a gravity-related risk and proper safety devices were absent or inadequate. The main remaining issue in this case is not control, but whether the accident legally qualifies as an elevation-related event under § 240(1). If a jury says yes, the owner may still be responsible.

3 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.