Narrative Opinion Summary
Order reversed unanimously, with costs not awarded, and the complaint dismissed. The plaintiff, a laborer for a contractor replacing a roof on a school building owned by the defendant, sustained injuries when he slipped on a water sealant while carrying a pail of hot tar. He claimed a violation of Labor Law § 241(6), citing a breach of 12 NYCRR § 23-1.7(d), which mandates the removal or covering of slippery substances to ensure safe footing. The Supreme Court's denial of the defendant's motion for summary judgment was deemed erroneous. The court determined that the water sealant did not qualify as a foreign substance under the cited regulation, as it was an integral component of the roofing material being installed. Relevant case law, including Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co. and others, supported this interpretation. The appeal was heard by Justices Denman, Pine, Wesley, Doerr, and Balio.
Legal Issues Addressed
Definition of Foreign Substance under 12 NYCRR § 23-1.7(d)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the water sealant was not a 'foreign substance' because it was an integral part of the roofing material being applied, thus not violating the safety regulation.
Reasoning: The court determined that the water sealant did not qualify as a foreign substance under the cited regulation, as it was an integral component of the roofing material being installed.
Labor Law § 241(6) and Regulatory Violationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court evaluated whether the presence of a water sealant constituted a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) by examining its classification under 12 NYCRR § 23-1.7(d).
Reasoning: He claimed a violation of Labor Law § 241(6), citing a breach of 12 NYCRR § 23-1.7(d), which mandates the removal or covering of slippery substances to ensure safe footing.
Summary Judgment Standardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reversed the denial of summary judgment, indicating that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the interpretation of the regulatory requirements.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court's denial of the defendant's motion for summary judgment was deemed erroneous.