In Singh v. City of New York (2014), the plaintiff filed a claim against the the City of New York under Labor Law § 240(1), more commonly known as the scaffolding law. The plaintiff, a construction worker, was injured when he fell from a ladder where he was working in a school library.  For this to fall under the scaffolding law, the plaintiff must be able to prove that the injury fell under the Labor Law.

The worker sued to receive damages to from his fall. The Supreme Court in Richmond County (State Island, New York) denied his motion for summary judgment. This means that any judgment entered for one party and against another party can be decided without a full trial. However, the Plaintiff failed to establish that his injury fell under this law.

The worker then filed an appeal. To win a case like this, he must be able to show liability under Labor Law § 240 and prove that the injury was caused by the carelessness of the employer. However, the New York Court of Appeals also found that the plaintiff could not present a case that proved that the injuries resulted from the actions, or lack of actions, by the city.

The scaffolding law is one of New York’s most important laws. Labor Law § 240 was initially put into place to protect construction workers against gravity related falls. Because of this, the construction worker must be able to prove that he or she fell because of the negligent of a defendant. To prevail in this case, the worker must be able to show that “the subject ladder was defective or inadequately secured” (Singh v. City of New York) causing the injury.

The court found that the plaintiff could not prove that his injuries fell under the Labor Law § 240. The final decision of the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment.