Susan Boland Achieves Dismissal of Labor Law §240(1) Claim

In this case, Partner Susan Boland was able to successfully argue that the plaintiff was not protected under the Labor Law as the requisite nexus between our client (building owner) and the plaintiff did not exist.

The Plaintiff, a cable installer, was hired by the Superintendent, employed by our client to install cable and internet service in the Super’s basement apartment in a building owned by our client. The plaintiff was allegedly injured when he fell from a ladder during his course of his work.

Ms. Boland argued that the plaintiff was not covered under the Labor Law as the Superintendent did not advise his employer that he was having cable installed; he paid for the installation himself and that the installation was in no way connected to his employment at the subject building. The Court agreed and granted defendants’ motion and denied plaintiff’s cross motion under Labor Law §240(1) holding that the defendants demonstrated their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the plaintiff’s Labor Law §240(1) by establishing that they did not authorize or have knowledge of the plaintiff’s work, and that the requisite nexus between defendants and plaintiff did not exist.

The Court also dismissed the plaintiff’s claims under Labor Law §§200 and 241(6) as those portions of the motion went unopposed by the plaintiff.

Latest News