The integral-to-the-work doctrine to Labor Law § 241 (6) has received considerable attention this past year. New York Civil Law is waiting on the New York Court of Appeals' decision in Ruisech v Structure Tone Inc., which was argued last month (see post here). The Court of Appeals addressed the doctrine earlier this year in Bazdaric v Almah Partners LLC. In Bazdaric, the Court explained that the integral-to-the-work doctrine "applies only when the dangerous condition is inherent to the task at hand, and not when a defendant or third party's negligence created a danger that was avoidable without obstructive the work or imperiling the worker."

Last week, the New York Appellate Division, First Judicial Department in Cioppa v ESRT 112 W. 34th Street L.P. addressed an alleged construction site accident concerning a piece of plywood used as temporary flooring over an unfinished and uneven concrete floor. The plaintiff claimed that he fell after stepping into a hole in a piece of plywood and then into a hole in the floor. The plywood was deliberately placed on the stripped floor as a protective measure in response to the plaintiff's complaints. The motion court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on a violation of New York Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (e) (2).

Analyzing the provision, the First Department stated that section 23-1.7 (e) (2) "does not apply to all potential tripping hazards but only to 'accumulations of dirt and debris,' 'scattered tools and materials,' and 'sharp projections.'" The First Department concluded that, as a matter of law, the plywood board, notwithstanding its hole, could not be described as an "'accumlation[] of . . . debris' or as part of a "'scatter[ing]' of 'tools and materials.'"

You might be asking, "What does this case have to do with the integral-to the-work doctrine?" The appellant relied on the doctrine and the Court of Appeals' holding in Bazdaric, arguing that the plywood could not be considered integral to the plaintiff's work. In a footnote, the First Department alludes to the appellant's argument–without referring to the integral to work doctrine–and concludes that the reasoning in Bazdaric does not readily apply to the circumstances of this accident because the "deliberately placed plywood board" does not constitute "an 'accumulation[] of . . . debris' or 'scattered . . . material' within the meaning of section 23-1.7 (e) (2). In the same footnote, the First Department distinguishes the facts of the appellant's alleged accident from those in Lourenco v City of New York. In Lourenco, the worker tripped on plastic sheeting that had been discarded from a previous stage of the work. Under those circumstances, the First Department concluded that the plastic sheeting constituted "debris" and therefore, supported a violation of section 23-1.7 (e) (2).

The appellate briefs in Cioppa discuss the integral-to-the-work doctrine in depth. Even though the First Department decided the appeal on different grounds, it is valuable to review the appellate briefs.

Appellant's Brief: Download Cioppa Appellant's Brief

Third-Party Defendant/Respondent's Brief: Download Third-Party Defendant Respondent's Brief

Defendant/Respondent's Brief: Download Defendant's Respondent's Brief

Reply Brief: Download Reply Brief