Background
A construction worker employed at a project on West 34th Street in Manhattan slipped and fell on a snow- or ice-covered staircase while carrying lumber. Plaintiff DePhillips brought claims under New York’s Labor Law §241(6) — part of the state’s distinctive “Scaffold Law” regime that imposes absolute liability on owners and general contractors for construction-site safety violations — predicated on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) §23-1.7(d), which requires employers to keep passageways free of slippery substances.
Supreme Court, New York County (Ramseur, J.) granted DePhillips’s motion for summary judgment on liability under §241(6). The court also found that three entities — The Moinian Group (which owned 75% of the joint venture and held approval rights over major contractors), Boston Properties (which participated in scheduling, budgeting, and weekly site inspections), and Meushar 34th Street LLC (whose principal was the authorized signatory for all owner documents) — were “proper Labor Law defendants” even though they were not the property titleholder. The defendants appealed both rulings.
The Appellate Division, First Department unanimously affirmed.
The Court’s Holding
On the §241(6) liability question, the court found that plaintiff’s unrebutted testimony — that he slipped on a snow- or ice-covered staircase — satisfied his prima facie burden under Industrial Code §23-1.7(d). Defendants offered no eyewitness evidence of the accident; the only opposition affidavit came from someone who heard the fall, and even that witness acknowledged the possible presence of snow or ice at the stair edges. Because defendants “failed to rebut” the showing, summary judgment on liability was proper.
On the owner-liability question, the court applied the Court of Appeals’ holding in Scaparo v. Village of Ilion, 13 NY3d 864 (2009): the term “owner” under Labor Law §241(6) “encompasses a person who has an interest in the property and who fulfilled the role of owner by contracting to have work performed for his benefit.” What matters is the right to supervise and control the work — not whether a party holds title. Here, The Moinian Group held majority ownership with approval rights over major trade contractors and had representatives attending weekly site meetings with Tishman Construction; Boston Properties paid Tishman and inspected the work; Meushar’s principal signed every owner-side document. All three entities satisfied the functional ownership test.
The panel noted that defendants’ remaining arguments were unavailing, unanimously affirming without costs.
Key Takeaways
- Under New York Labor Law §241(6), Industrial Code §23-1.7(d) (prohibition on slippery passageways) remains a viable predicate; a plaintiff’s own unrebutted account of slipping on ice or snow at a construction site is sufficient for summary judgment on liability when defendants produce no contrary eyewitness evidence.
- Joint-venture partners, investor entities, and project-control participants can each qualify as “owners” under the Scaffold Law if they have interests in the property and contracted to have work performed for their benefit — the absence of fee title is no defense.
- Counsel defending construction-accident claims must conduct thorough discovery on every entity that exercised approval authority, attended site meetings, or controlled contractor payments — any such participant faces exposure under the strict-liability framework.
Why It Matters
New York’s Labor Law §§240 and 241 impose absolute liability on “owners” and contractors for construction-site injuries regardless of the injured worker’s own negligence — a standard that exists in no other state. The First Department’s unanimous confirmation that joint-venture investors and project-management entities qualify as “owners” under this framework has immediate practical significance: structuring a development project through multiple entities, holding companies, or investment vehicles does not insulate those entities from Scaffold Law exposure if they exercise any meaningful control over contracting or site operations.
For real-estate developers, general partners, and institutional investors active in New York construction projects, this decision reinforces the importance of carefully auditing which entities appear in construction contracts, attend project meetings, or hold approval authority over trade contractors. Each such entity is a potential §241(6) defendant facing strict liability for site injuries. Defense counsel and risk managers should account for this expanded ownership exposure when structuring projects, procuring insurance, and positioning liability arguments in active litigation.