Digangi v New York City Sch. Constr. Auth.

Holding The court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim because the three-foot fall did not present a significant elevation-related risk, and modified the order to dismiss the Labor Law § 241(6) claims predicated on specific Industrial Code provisions and OSHA regulations. The court denied summary judgment on the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, finding triable issues of fact regarding the defendants’ notice of the icy condition.

The court’s words

The approximately three-foot descent from the compact track loader step to the ground was not an elevation-related risk for the purposes of Labor Law § 240(1)

2026 NY Slip Op 05162, at the official text

the plaintiff's failure to see the ice on the step prior to his fall does not establish that the cause of the accident cannot be identified without engaging in speculation

2026 NY Slip Op 05162, at the official text

a violation of an OSHA standard does not provide a basis for liability under Labor Law § 241(6)

2026 NY Slip Op 05162, at the official text

the plaintiff has abandoned his reliance on provisions of the Industrial Code other than 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) and 23-1.30

2026 NY Slip Op 05162, at the official text