Canales v. Rye Neck Union Free Sch. Dist.

Canales, 2025 NY Slip Op 02902 (Appellate Division Second Judicial Department 2025) · Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department · May 14, 2025 · No. 2023-04956

Summary

This New York Appellate Division decision affirms a trial court's grant of summary judgment dismissing a construction worker's personal injury claims against a school district and its contractor. The court held that Labor Law § 240(1) was inapplicable because the plaintiff's approximately five-foot fall from a truck cab did not involve a physically significant elevation-related risk. Additionally, the court found that Labor Law § 241(6) claims predicated on specific Industrial Code safety regulations were properly dismissed, as the alleged slip on a truck step did not violate the applicable floor or walkway standards. The appellate court concluded that the defendants met their prima facie burden and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Court
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Writing for the Court
Connolly, J.P.; Iannacci, J.; Warhit, J.; Love, J.J.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
May 14, 2025
Docket number
2023-04956
Procedural posture
Appeal from order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County granting summary judgment dismissing claims under Labor Law §§240(1) and 241(6) and denying plaintiff's cross‑motion for summary judgment on liability.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Osman Canales v. Rye Neck Union Free School District, et al.
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

construction lawtortsappellate procedure

Practice areas

tortsconstruction lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Labor Law §240(1) applies to the plaintiff's injury involving a slip on a truck step.
  2. Whether Labor Law §241(6) applies to the plaintiff's injury based on alleged violations of 12 NYCRR 23‑1.7(d) and (e)(2).

Holdings

  1. Labor Law §240(1) does not apply because the plaintiff's injury was not the direct consequence of a failure to provide protection against an elevation‑related risk.
  2. Labor Law §241(6) does not apply because the alleged violations of 12 NYCRR 23‑1.7(d) and (e)(2) are inapplicable to a slip on a truck step, which is not an elevated working surface or a tripping hazard covered by the regulations.

Key quotations

Labor Law § 240(1) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners and general contractors and their agents to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites
Labor Law § 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to construction workers.

Factual background

The plaintiff was working as a laborer for Sea Breeze on the roof demolition of Daniel Warren Elementary School. While retrieving tools from a Sea Breeze truck parked in the school parking lot, he slipped on the truck's top step and fell about five feet to the ground, sustaining injuries.

Procedural history

The plaintiff, an employee of Sea Breeze General Construction, sued the school district and elementary school for violations of Labor Law §§240(1) and 241(6) after slipping on a truck step at a construction site. The trial court granted summary judgment in part for the defendants and denied the plaintiff's cross‑motion. The plaintiff appealed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…