Misseritti v. Mark IV Const. Co., Inc.

Decision Date31 October 1995
Citation86 N.Y.2d 487,634 N.Y.S.2d 35,657 N.E.2d 1318
Parties, 657 N.E.2d 1318 Loretta MISSERITTI, as Administratrix of the Estate of Angelo Misseritti, Deceased, Appellant, v. MARK IV CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. B.A. Masons, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
OPINION OF THE COURT

CIPARICK, Judge.

The issue presented on this appeal is whether plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on her Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action based upon the absence of any "bracing" on the fire wall that collapsed at the construction site where her husband was working. We conclude that the collapse of the fire wall is the type of "ordinary and usual" peril a worker is commonly exposed to at a construction site and not an elevation-related risk subject to the safeguards prescribed by Labor Law § 240(1).

According to the complaint, plaintiff's decedent was a mason employed by third-party defendant B.A. Masons, Inc. (Masons), the subcontractor hired by defendant and third-party plaintiff, Mark IV Construction Co., Inc. (Mark IV), to perform masonry work for certain townhouses being constructed in Monroe County. On February 22, 1988, the decedent was severely injured when a completed, concrete-block fire wall collapsed. It is alleged that this incident was the sole cause of the decedent's demise two years later on May 28, 1990. Plaintiff, as administratrix of her husband's estate, commenced this action against Mark IV alleging, among other things, that her husband's injuries and damages were occasioned by defendant's failure to comply with its nondelegable duty under Labor Law § 240(1) to furnish or erect "reasonably safe scaffolding, braces, and other devices * * * so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to [decedent] in the course of his employment." Plaintiff thereafter moved for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. Mark IV cross-moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1).

As relevant, Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action and accordingly denied Mark IV's cross motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified, with two Justices dissenting, to the extent of granting defendant summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action and, as so modified, affirmed. Plaintiff appeals as of right pursuant to CPLR 5601(d). By stipulation, the parties discontinued all causes of action in the complaint except for the one brought under Labor Law § 240(1).

The import of Labor Law § 240(1) is undeniably salutary, requiring owners and contractors to provide proper protection to workers employed on a construction site (see, Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 509, 513, 577 N.Y.S.2d 219, 583 N.E.2d 932; Zimmer v. Chemung County Performing Arts, 65 N.Y.2d 513, 520-521, 493 N.Y.S.2d 102, 482 N.E.2d 898, rearg. denied 65 N.Y.2d 1054, 494 N.Y.S.2d 1033, 484 N.E.2d 1055; Haimes v. New York Tel. Co., 46 N.Y.2d 132, 135, 412 N.Y.S.2d 863, 385 N.E.2d 601). However, not every hazard or danger encountered in a construction zone falls within the scope of Labor Law § 240(1) as to render the owner or contractor liable for an injured worker's damages (see, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 501, 601 N.Y.S.2d 49, 618 N.E.2d 82). We have expressly held that "Labor Law § 240(1) was aimed only at elevation-related hazards and that, accordingly, injuries resulting from other types of hazards are not compensable under that statute even if proximately caused by the absence of * * * [a] required safety device" (Id., at 500, 601 N.Y.S.2d 49, 618 N.E.2d 82; see also, Rodriguez v. Tietz Ctr. for Nursing Care, 84 N.Y.2d 841, 843-844, 616 N.Y.S.2d 900, 640 N.E.2d 1134 [Labor Law § 240(1) inapplicable where worker struck in the knee by 120-pound steel beam he was hoisting into place]; Smith v. New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 N.Y.2d 781, 783, 604 N.Y.S.2d 540, 624 N.E.2d 677 [worker injured by 200-pound tension ball propelled against him after its cable snapped does not have a Labor Law § 240(1) claim]; Groves v. Land's End Hous. Co., 80 N.Y.2d 978, 980, 592 N.Y.S.2d 643, 607 N.E.2d 790 [Labor Law § 240(1) not available to worker injured by forklift that tipped over].

Section 240, known as the "Scaffold Law," has historically been construed in the context of workers injured as a result of inadequate or missing safety equipment at elevated work sites (see, Bland v. Manocherian, 66 N.Y.2d 452, 457-459, 497 N.Y.S.2d 880, 488 N.E.2d 810; Haimes v. New York Tel. Co., 46 N.Y.2d, at 134-137, 412 N.Y.S.2d 863, 385 N.E.2d 601, supra; Sarnoff v. Charles Schad, Inc., 22 N.Y.2d 180, 183-185, 292 N.Y.S.2d 93, 239 N.E.2d 194; DeHaen v. Rockwood Sprinkler Co., 258 N.Y. 350, 354, 179 N.E. 764). It is in recognition of the exceptionally dangerous conditions posed by elevation differentials at work sites that section 240(1) prescribes safety precautions for workers laboring under unique gravity-related hazards (see, Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d, at 501, 601 N.Y.S.2d 49, 618 N.E.2d 82, supra ). Indeed, the type of protective devices...

To continue reading

Request your trial
207 cases
  • Guenther v. Modern Continental Companies
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 4 Junio 2008
    ...... CONTINENTAL COMPANIES, Modern Continental Construction Co. of New York, Inc., Modern Continental Construction Co., ...Patrick Const. Corp., 298 N.Y. 313, 316-17, 83 N.E.2d 133 (N.Y.1948)). ...1st Dept.2007) (citing Misseritti v. Mark IV Const. Co., Inc., 86 N.Y.2d 487, 489, 634 ......
  • Steinman v. Morton Int'l Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • 19 Noviembre 2010
    ...so as to render the owner or contractor absolutely liable for an injured worker's damages. Misseritti v. Mark IV Const. Co., Inc., 86 N.Y.2d 487, 490, 634 N.Y.S.2d 35, 657 N.E.2d 1318 (1995). The New York Court of Appeals has made it clear that the protection afforded by the statute is limi......
  • Silva v. FC Beekman Assocs., LLC
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 14 Febrero 2012
    ...( see Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 4 N.Y.3d 35, 39, 790 N.Y.S.2d 74, 823 N.E.2d 439; Misseritti v. Mark IV Constr. Co., 86 N.Y.2d 487, 490–491, 634 N.Y.S.2d 35, 657 N.E.2d 1318; Balzer v. City of New York, 61 A.D.3d 796, 797, 877 N.Y.S.2d 435; Chlebowski v. Esber, 58 A.D.3d 6......
  • Chavarria v. 2709-11 Coney Island Ave. LLC
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • 23 Diciembre 2009
    ...... LINETSKY, K & L CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT OF NEW YORK, INC., LEON MIKHLIN, MIKHLIN HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants. ...Auto Ins. Co. , 3 N.Y.3d 725, 726-727(2004); Tower Ins. Co. of New York ...Grand Opal Const. Corp. , 64 A.D.3d 543 (2nd Dept. 2009)[Supreme Court ..., 96 N.Y.2d 259 (2001); Misseritti v Mark IV Constr. Co., Inc. , 86 N.Y.2d 487 (1995); Ross v ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT