Labor Law § 240 (1) does not apply here as plaintiff was not engaged in any alteration of the building at the time of the occurrence. The argument that his inspection might have led to additional work is mere speculation.
The motion court properly dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) and § 200 and common-law negligence claims. There is no evidence that plaintiff was engaged in construction, excavation or demolition work that would bring his work within...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
