Labor Law \u00a7 240(1) was enacted, mainly, to protect construction workers from gravity-related risks, of which there are two types: (1) stuff falling on workers and (2) workers falling from stuff.\u00a0 Notably, the statute protects against risks<\/em>, and as the First Department reminds us, the falling is optional.\u00a0<\/p>\n In York v. Tappan Zee Constructors, LLC<\/em>, 2024 NY Slip Op 00826 (1st<\/sup> Dep\u2019t 2024), the First Department modified a Supreme Court, New York County order which granted plaintiff\u2019s motion for summary judgment as to Labor Law \u00a7 241(6), which was predicated on a violation of Industrial Code 12 N.Y.C.R.R. \u00a7 23-1.7(d), and denied plaintiff\u2019s motion as to Labor Law \u00a7 240(1).\u00a0 The lower Court\u2019s motion further granted the defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment, dismissing plaintiff\u2019s Labor Law \u00a7 240(1) claim.\u00a0 We also note, the lower Court denied defendant\u2019s motion as to plaintiff\u2019s Labor Law \u00a7 200.\u00a0<\/p>\n In York<\/em>, plaintiff alleged he was taken by boat to a worksite at the Tappan Zee Bridge where defendant was the general contractor.\u00a0 The boat docked at one of two barges on the water.\u00a0 While attempting to cross from one barge to another, without a gangway in place, plaintiff slipped and fell on an icy condition.\u00a0 Plaintiff almost fell into the approximately three-foot gap between the barges into the water 8-12 feet below, but was able to grab onto another worker in front of him, who then pulled him onto the barge.\u00a0 Plaintiff further alleged that he was unable to see the icy condition before he fell because it was dark as there was no lighting on the barges.<\/p>\n Agreeing with the lower Court, the First Department held that plaintiff established his entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law as to his Labor Law \u00a7 240(1) cause of action.\u00a0 Though the injuries resulted from a slip and fall on an alleged icy condition on the barges which were at the same level, plaintiff fell while struggling to avoid the elevation-related risk of falling into the water.\u00a0 The First Department noted that the site safety plan required a gangway between the barges, and the absence of the gangway was a proximate cause of the subject accident.\u00a0<\/p>\n As a result of the modification of the lower Court\u2019s order which granted plaintiff\u2019s motion for summary judgment, the First Department deemed arguments by defendant that plaintiff\u2019s Labor Law \u00a7 241(6) claim should have been dismissed academic in nature.<\/p>\n With regard to plaintiff\u2019s Labor Law \u00a7 200 claims, the First Department upheld the lower Court\u2019s ruling that denied defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment.\u00a0 Defendant failed to meet its initial burden of demonstrating an absence of material issues of fact as to whether it had constructive notice of the icy condition.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n