New York Civil Law has discussed on several occasions about the analysis courts must apply within the context of Labor Law sec. 240(1) where a bright line exists between work coming within the ambit of protected activities and work that is not (see post here).  In the Appellate Division, Second Department’s most recent Labor Law decision (Rivera v. Santos), the plaintiff was injured while cutting a tree branch on property owned by defendant E. Santos.  E. Santos had purchased the property from N. and R. Santos, and E. Santos hired the defendant builder to build a house on the property.

E. Santos separately hired the plaintiff’s employer for tree and plant removal on the property.  All the tree and plant removal work was completed before any construction had commenced.  The Court observed that the tree removal work was completed a few months before any house
construction work commenced, and thus such removal work was "a separate
phase easily distinguishable from other parts of the larger
construction project."  Citing Prats v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. and Beehner v. Eckerd Corp., the Court held the plaintiff was not engaged
in an enumerated activity within the purview of Labor Law § 240(1) at
the time of the accident.

Although it is always good to get a clear cut Labor Law decision, this one does little to augment the protected versus non-protected activity analysis because the bright line here is extremely bright.