The New York Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments tomorrow (webcast here), October 15, 2024, on a Labor Law § 241 (6) issue. More specifically, the Court will address the interpretation of New York Industrial Code provision 23-1.7 (e) (2).
The Court recently addressed an "integral to the work" doctrine within the context of New York Industrial Code provision 23-1.7 (d) in Bazdaric v Almah Partners LLC.
The pending appeal in Ruisech v Structure Tone Inc. concerns a construction site accident where the plaintiff, employed by A-Val (a subcontractor), slipped on pebbles while installing a glass divider. The key focus of the appeal involved claims under Labor Law § 241(6), based on Industrial Code § 23-1.7(d) and (e) (2).
The court dismissed the Labor Law § 241(6) claim against defendants Park (property owner), CBRE (tenant), and Structure Tone (general contractor), and Tishman-Speyer (property manager) determining, among other things, that the pebbles on the floor were "debris integral to the work" being performed rather than a "foreign substance" causing slippery conditions. The Appellate Division concluded that the "integral to the work" doctrine was applied here, and the doctrine excluded debris from constituting a hazardous condition if it was directly related to ongoing construction activities. This ruling reinforced prior case law (e.g., Krzyzanowski v City of New York) that debris arising from the work itself does not trigger liability under § 23-1.7 (e)(2).
In support of his motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, the plaintiffs stated, "[W]hile the trial court held that issues of fact were present, the Appellate Division decided as a matter of law that the debris on which the Plaintiff slipped was 'an integral part of the construction," despite that the accumulations of 'debris' is one of the hazards from which the code expressly seeks to protect workers." The Plaintiffs argued that the Appellate Division's holding is inconsistent with the reasoning underlying the "integral part of the construction" exception because it extends the exception so far beyond the Court's decision in O'Sullivan v IDI Const. Co. that it subsumes the regulations entirely (See attorney affirmation here: Download RuisechvStructureTone-app-Ruisech-mot).
The parties' briefs to the Court of Appeals are provided below:
Appellants' Brief: Download Ruisech v. Structure Tone_App_Ruisech_Brf
Respondent's Brief (CBRE): Download RuisechvStructureTone-res-CBRE-opp
Responent's Brief (Structure Tone): Download RuisechvStructureTone-res-StructureTone-opp
Respondent's Brief (Tishman-Speyer): Download RuisechvStructureTone-res-TishmanSpeyer-opp
Respondent's Brief (A-Val): Download AvalRuisechvStuctureTone-res-Aval-brf
Reply Brief: Download RuisechvStructure_App_Ruisech_replybrf