Nagel v. D & R REALTY CORP.
Decision Date | 14 November 2002 |
Citation | 782 N.E.2d 558,752 N.Y.S.2d 581,99 N.Y.2d 98 |
Parties | BRUCE NAGEL et al., Appellants, v. D & R REALTY CORP., Respondent. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
David P. Kownacki, P.C., New York City (David P. Kownacki of counsel), for appellants. Mauro Goldberg & Lilling LLP, Great Neck (Kenneth Mauro, Caryn L. Lilling and Madeleine C. Petrara of counsel), and Harms, Della Jacono & Finneran for respondent.
The issue before this Court is whether a laborer injured while performing a two-year safety test on an elevator can recover under Labor Law § 241 (6). Because the protections of Labor Law § 241 (6) do not apply to claims arising out of maintenance of a building or structure outside of the construction context, such claims must fail.
Bruce Nagel was standing on top of an elevator, performing a two-year safety inspection, when he slipped on oil and fell, injuring his right shoulder. Nagel, and his wife derivatively, brought an action against D & R Realty Corp., the owner of the building, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1) and § 241 (6). Specifically, the Nagels alleged that D & R failed to comply with section 23-1.7 (d)1 of the Industrial Code. D & R answered and subsequently moved for summary judgment dismissal of the complaint. The Nagels withdrew their claims pursuant to Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1) and opposed the motion. They submitted Bruce Nagel's deposition testimony wherein he averred that he had been performing an inspection to "make sure the safeties work[ed] properly on the elevator." He explained that in layperson's terms, he was making sure that the "brakes" on the elevator worked. He testified that the entire process took about two hours and that he had been working approximately 1½ hours when the accident occurred.
Supreme Court granted D & R's summary judgment motion and dismissed the complaint, reasoning that the Nagels had no cause of action because Nagel was performing routine maintenance work that was not construction, demolition or excavation within the meaning of Labor Law § 241 (6). The Appellate Division affirmed, reasoning that although some maintenance work could be considered construction, it could only be so considered where significant structural work rather than routine maintenance was involved. This Court granted leave, and we now affirm, but on a different ground.
On this appeal, the Nagels argue that Bruce Nagel's injury is a construction injury within the meaning of Labor Law § 241 (6) because that statute specifically incorporates rules promulgated by the Industrial Board of Appeals (formerly the Board of Standards and Appeals). The Nagels argue that section 23-1.4 (b) (13) of the Industrial Code defines construction work to include maintenance work, and neither the statute nor the rules distinguish between routine and nonroutine maintenance.
D & R counters that routine maintenance is not a protected activity within the meaning of Labor Law § 241 (6).
Section 241 of the Labor Law, entitled "Construction, excavation and demolition work," provides:
That the statute is meant to protect workers engaged in duties connected to the inherently hazardous work of construction, excavation or demolition is confirmed not only by its title but also by review of the statute's legislative history. (Allen v Cloutier Constr. Corp., 44 NY2d 290, 297-298 [1978] [citations omitted]; see L 1909, ch 36, § 20, as amended by L 1911, ch 693; L 1913, ch 492; L 1919, ch 545, § 2; L 1921, ch 50, as amended). Subdivisions (6) and (7) were rulemaking in nature, and provided that the Board of Standards and Appeals might make rules for the protection of workers.
In 1962, the Legislature also sought to protect "construction workers not specifically covered by existing standards" (see Senate Introducer Mem in Support, Bill Jacket, L 1962, ch 450, at 17). The bill's introductory memorandum acknowledged that (Mem of Indus Commr, Bill Jacket, at 8.) It therefore amended section 241, substituting in place of the prior seven subdivisions—one paragraph setting forth only general duties of owners, general contractors and subcontractors, who must provide "reasonable and adequate protection and safety to the persons employed therein or lawfully frequenting such places." (L 1962, ch 450, § 3.) This paragraph corresponds to subdivision (6) of the present statute.
The resulting statute, however, was devoid of specific directions imposing absolute liability and, thus, violation of the statute was merely some evidence of negligence (see Allen v Cloutier, 44 NY2d at 299
). In effect, violation of the statute was merely breach of the common-law duty of an owner or general contractor to provide a safe place to work on the construction site (see Iuliani v Great Neck Sewer Dist., 38 NY2d 885, 886 [1976]; Rusin v Jackson Hgts. Shopping Ctr., 27 NY2d 103, 106 [1970]). (Allen v Cloutier 44 NY2d at 299).
Accordingly, in 1969, the Legislature again amended section 241 to restore the detailed provisions of section 241 that existed before the 1962 amendment. This was accomplished by enacting the prefatory paragraph—which remains in the present statute—and by deleting subcontractors from the scope of the statute and restoring former subdivisions (1) through (5), which the 1962 amendment had excised (see L 1969, ch 1108, § 3). Subdivision (7), added by the 1969 amendment, and subdivision (8) (added by L 1974, ch 754) authorized the Board to promulgate rules and regulations for the protection of workers, a grant of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re World Trade Ctr. Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litig.
...in duties connected to the inherently hazardous work of construction, excavation or demolition,” Nagel v. D & R Realty Corp., 99 N.Y.2d 98, 101, 752 N.Y.S.2d 581, 782 N.E.2d 558 (2002), by imposing a non-delegable duty upon owners, general contractors, and their agents, to comply with the N......
-
In re World Trade Ctr. Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litig.
...in duties connected to the inherently hazardous work of construction, excavation or demolition,” Nagel v. D & R Realty Corp., 99 N.Y.2d 98, 101, 752 N.Y.S.2d 581, 782 N.E.2d 558 (2002), by imposing a non-delegable duty upon owners, general contractors, and their agents, to comply with the N......
-
Bradley v. Hwa 1290 III LLC
...construction, demolition, or excavation. See Esposito v. New York City Indus. Dev. Agency, 1 N.Y.3d 526, 528 (2003); Nagel v. D & R Realty Corp., 99 N.Y.2d 98, 103 (2002); Garcia v. 225 E. 57th St. Owners, Inc., 96 A.D.3d 88, 91 (1st Dep't 2012); Mata v. Park Here Garage Corp., 71 A.D.3d 42......
-
Martinez v. City of N.Y.
...the accident did not arise from construction, excavation, or demolition work ( see Labor Law § 241 [6]; Nagel v. D & R Realty Corp., 99 N.Y.2d 98, 101, 752 N.Y.S.2d 581, 782 N.E.2d 558; Enos v. Werlatone, Inc., 68 A.D.3d 713, 890 N.Y.S.2d 109). “To support a cause of action under Labor Law ......