Panek v. County of Albany, 99 N.Y.2d 452 (2003)

Under New York Labor Law § 240(1), an activity constitutes “altering” a building or structure if it involves making a significant physical change to its configuration or composition, regardless of whether the building is slated for future demolition.

Summary

Andrew Panek, an FAA employee, was injured while removing air handlers from an old air traffic control tower slated for demolition. The New York Court of Appeals held that his work constituted “altering” the building under Labor Law § 240(1) because it involved a significant physical change, despite the building’s impending demolition. The Court emphasized that the focus should be on the nature of the work at the time of the injury, not the building’s future.

Facts

The FAA leased an air traffic control tower from the County of Albany Airport Authority. After a new tower was built, Panek was instructed to remove two 200-pound air handlers from the old tower’s cooling system. This involved dismantling the cooling system over two days. On the third day, while removing the second air handler, Panek fell from a ladder and sustained injuries. The ladder allegedly failed, causing him to fall.

Procedural History

Panek sued the County and the Authority, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). Supreme Court granted Panek’s motion for partial summary judgment on the § 240(1) claim, finding he was engaged in an alteration. The Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the complaint, reasoning that the tower’s scheduled demolition precluded a finding of alteration. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Supreme Court’s order.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Panek’s work constituted “demolition” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1)?

2. Whether Panek’s removal of the air handlers constituted “altering” the building under Labor Law § 240(1), given the building’s scheduled demolition?

Holding

1. No, because Panek’s work was to be completed before the commencement of any work by the demolition contractor.

2. Yes, because the removal of the air handlers involved making a significant physical change to the building, satisfying the standard for an alteration under Labor Law § 240(1).

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that while Panek was not engaged in demolition work, his activities did constitute an alteration. The Court relied on its prior holdings in Joblon v. Solow and Weininger v. Hagedorn & Co., emphasizing that “altering” requires making a “significant physical change to the configuration or composition of the building or structure.” The removal of the 200-pound air handlers, requiring preparatory labor and the use of a mechanical lift, clearly met this standard. The Court explicitly rejected the argument that the impending demolition of the tower should preclude a finding of alteration, stating that the focus should be on the nature of the work project at the time of the accident. Furthermore, because the defendants did not contest that the ladder failed, the court found no issue of fact regarding proximate causation. The Court emphasized the purpose of Labor Law § 240(1) is to protect workers by placing ultimate responsibility for safety practices on owners and contractors. The court stated that the strict liability provision “is to be construed as liberally as may be for the accomplishment of the purpose for which it was thus framed.” (Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 NY2d 555, 559 [1993]).