Background
On October 2, 2023, Boris Alex Cabanilla Chacho was working at an elevated height at a Brooklyn premises owned by William James Cudney, Elizabeth Zehe, Gabriel Hartman Stein, and Ariel Celeste Azoff (collectively, the owners). The owners had retained Co Adaptive Building, LLC as a contractor to perform certain renovations at the property. Chacho alleges he was injured while performing work at elevation. He brought suit against the owners and Co Adaptive, asserting violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6), as well as a common-law negligence claim. Co Adaptive filed cross-claims against the owners for contribution and indemnification.
Prior to any discovery, the owners moved under CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss all claims and cross-claims asserted against them, arguing that the complaint failed to state viable causes of action at the pleading stage. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the motion. The owners appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Division affirmed. Under CPLR 3211(a)(7), a complaint is afforded a liberal construction, the facts alleged are accepted as true, and the court asks only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory. Dismissal is inappropriate unless the plaintiff cannot possibly have a cause of action.
Here, the complaint adequately stated causes of action under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). Labor Law § 240(1) — known as the Scaffold Law — imposes absolute liability on owners and general contractors for elevation-related accidents involving workers engaged in construction, renovation, repair, and similar activities. Because the complaint alleged that Chacho was injured while working at an elevated height during renovation work on the owners’ premises, the § 240(1) claim survived the pleading-stage challenge. Similarly, the § 241(6) industrial code violation claim and the § 200 workplace safety claim stated cognizable theories that required development through discovery.
Key Takeaways
- Labor Law § 240(1) claims against property owners and contractors are not properly resolved on pre-answer CPLR 3211 motions when the complaint alleges that a worker was injured at elevation during renovation or construction work.
- The “homeowner’s exemption” — which can insulate owners of one- and two-family residences from § 240(1) liability if they did not direct or control the work — is a factual inquiry that must be developed through discovery, not resolved at the pleading stage.
- Owners who hire contractors for residential renovation projects should be aware that Labor Law § 240(1) exposure exists and cannot be disposed of through a pre-discovery motion to dismiss.
Why It Matters
New York’s Scaffold Law (Labor Law § 240[1]) remains one of the most significant sources of construction-related liability in the state. Property owners — including residential owners who undertake renovation projects — face absolute liability for elevation-related injuries to workers, regardless of the injured worker’s own negligence. This decision confirms that the pleading stage is not the venue to contest that liability: a complaint alleging a worker fell or was struck while working at height during construction is almost certain to survive a CPLR 3211 motion.
For plaintiffs’ counsel in construction injury cases, the case is a straightforward reminder that Labor Law § 240(1) claims against property owners should be pleaded early and broadly. For owners and their insurers, the takeaway is that Labor Law exposure must be addressed through early discovery and summary judgment strategy — not dismissed at the pleading stage absent clear facial defects in the complaint.