Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Philip SAFE, Appellant, v. BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION, Collana Brothers Construction, Inc., Respondents, et al., Defendant.
Defendant Collana Brothers Construction, Inc. (Collana Brothers) was hired as the general contractor to install concrete barriers along the Youngmann Expressway in Buffalo. Collana Brothers hired defendant Lakeview Equipment Leasing (Lakeview) to construct the concrete barriers, and Lakeview leased property from defendant Bethlehem Steel Corporation (Bethlehem Steel) for the construction of the concrete barriers. Plaintiff, an employee of Lakeview, was injured when he slipped and fell while carrying a steel beam, which was needed to separate the concrete panels. Supreme Court properly granted those parts of the motion of Collana Brothers and the cross motion of Bethlehem Steel for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action. That section applies to “construction, excavation or demolition work”, and plaintiff was not engaged in such work when he was injured (Labor Law § 241 [6]; see, 12 NYCRR 23-1.4[b][13] ). Plaintiff's injury did not occur at the Youngmann Expressway construction site, and, when plaintiff was injured, the installation of the concrete barriers was not yet underway (see, Vernieri v. Empire Realty Co., 219 A.D.2d 593, 595-596, 631 N.Y.S.2d 378). Plaintiff was manufacturing materials that were to be used for the construction project, an activity that is outside the scope of the statute (see, Jock v. Fien, 80 N.Y.2d 965, 968, 590 N.Y.S.2d 878, 605 N.E.2d 365).
Order unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 10, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)