In Beehner v. Eckerd Corp., the New York Court of Appeals held where a "bright-line" dividing a protected and unprotected activity exists, and the worker injures himself or herself during the unprotected activity, that worker does not come within the ambit of Labor Law Section 240(1).  The analysis in Beehner has been juxtaposed to the Court’s decision in Prats v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.

The recent case, Spitzer v. Atlantic-Heydt Corp., out of Supreme Court, Kings County has raised some eyebrows regarding the divide between Beehner and Prats.  The plaintiff, a licensed crane operator, was injured during a two-day assignment, apparently to help dismantle an extender arm of a tower crane.   The plaintiff’s job was to give instructions and directions to the crane operator, using hand signals.   In order to do so, plaintiff worked on an elevated platform, also called a sidewalk bridge, along with approximately four co-workers.  The plaintiff fell off the sidewalk bridge while helping to dismantle the crane. 

The Court held that even though hand signaling was not an enumerated activity, the dismantling of this tower crane was clearly a necessary and inseparable part of the larger construction project, and thus the dismantling was protected activity under Labor Law sec. 240(1). https://feeds.feedburner.com/~s/NewYorkCivilLaw?i=http://nylaw.typepad.com/new_york_civil_law/2004/11/new_york_court__7.html