Creedon & Gill partner Peter J. Creedon is incoming counsel on a serious labor law case involving a union electrician who was crushed by a falling electrical control d box. As our client’s crew raised a light pole during construction in new park the 150 pound box tore free of its straps and crashed onto worker below, His injuries forced him to retire,
The kind of work being performed is protected by New York’s Labor Law. In Fitzpatrick v. State of New York (25 AD3d 755 [2d Dept 2006] ), the Second Department held that the “replacement of [a] light fixture on [a] lighting pole … was activity protected under the statute”
Similarly Lewis–Moors v. Contel of New York, Inc. (78 N.Y.2d 942 [1991] ) the Court of Appeals held that “a telephone pole with attached hardware, cable and support systems constitutes a structure within the meaning of” Labor Law § 240(1) () The Court applied a broad definition of “structure” as including “any production or piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner.”
In accord is Cook v. Presbyterian Homes of Western New York 234 A.D.2d 906, (A.D. 4th 1996) 655 N.Y.S.2d 701 where an electrical technician was injured was repairing lighting in a parking lot. As the Court observed, “plaintiff was repairing and altering the light pole, thereby bringing him within the coverage of section 240(1)”
There is a meritorious New York Labor Law 240(1) claim premised on the argument that the electrical box was not properly secured when it fell. This is consistent with Agate v. City of New York (U.S.D.C, E.D. New York. 2009 WL 3171799) a case where a pole which fell because it was not properly secured created N.Y. Labor Law 240(1) liability.
Also in accord with Agate, there is a meritorious N.Y. Labor Law 200 and Common Law Negligence claims premised on arguments that Coastal had a presence at the worksite suggesting that they were aware of some of the alleged safety issues.
There is also has a meritorious N.Y. Labor Law 241(6) claim consistent with McCoy v. Metropolitan Transp. Authority (A.D. 1st Dept. 2007) premised on violations of Industrial Code provision § 23–8.1(f)(1)(iv) which requires that before beginning to hoist a load, the load must be “well secured and properly balanced … before it is lifted more than a few inches”.