- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department
- Case
- Lapinski v. MIP One Wall Street Acquisition LLC
- Date
- June 2, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03392
Background
Plaintiff Krzysztof Lapinski was a garbage truck driver employed by Independence Carting, which had contracted with defendant J.T. Magen & Company Inc., the general contractor, to perform Saturday carting services at an active construction site at One Wall Street owned by defendant MIP One Wall Street Acquisition LLC. On the day of the accident, J.T. Magen laborers loaded construction debris onto Lapinski’s truck and then directed him to move the truck to a second location within the loading dock area for additional debris to be loaded. Lapinski exited the truck to check its position at the new location. While returning to the truck, he was struck on the head by an object—alleged to be a pallet or skid—that fell from an elevated platform adjacent to the truck. Lapinski brought claims under Labor Law sections 240(1) and 241(6). Both sides moved for summary judgment. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted defendants’ motion and denied plaintiff’s motion. The plaintiff appealed.
Holding
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed, denied defendants’ motion, and granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law section 240(1) claim. The Court held that plaintiff’s task at the exact moment of injury was not dispositive of whether he was engaged in a protected activity under the Labor Law. Citing Rodriguez v. Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC, 240 AD3d 452 (1st Dept 2025), the Court explained that the proper inquiry includes whether the plaintiff’s employer was contracted to perform the kind of work enumerated in the statutes and whether the plaintiff was performing work necessary and incidental to a protected activity. Because Independence Carting was contracted to remove construction debris and Lapinski was performing that work when the falling object struck him, he was engaged in a protected activity under the Labor Law. The fact that he was a truck driver rather than a traditional construction worker did not remove him from the statute’s protection.
Takeaways
The scope of Labor Law section 240(1) protection extends beyond traditional construction workers to include any worker whose employer was contracted to perform enumerated work and who was performing tasks necessary and incidental to a protected construction activity. A garbage truck driver removing construction debris from an active construction site is engaged in a protected activity, even though the driver’s moment-to-moment task—checking the position of the truck—was not itself construction work. The focus is on the overall nature of the contracted work, not the specific task being performed at the precise moment of injury.
Why It Matters
This reversal is significant because it expands the practical scope of Labor Law section 240(1) protection to workers who may not consider themselves construction workers but who are performing services at active construction sites as part of the construction process. The decision clarifies that removing construction debris is an integral part of the construction process, and a worker injured by a falling object while performing that work is entitled to the statute’s protections. General contractors and property owners must ensure that all workers at an active construction site—including drivers and laborers employed by subcontractors performing ancillary services—are protected from gravity-related hazards, as failure to do so will result in strict liability under section 240(1).