Izrailev v. Ficarra Furniture of Long Island, Inc., 70 N.Y.2d 150 (1987)
r
r
Under New York Labor Law § 240(1), an electric sign affixed to a building is considered part of the building’s structure, and repairing such a sign falls under the statute’s protection for workers engaged in construction, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure.
r
r
Summary
r
This case addresses the scope of Labor Law § 240(1) concerning injuries sustained by a worker who fell while repairing an electric sign attached to a building. The Court of Appeals held that the sign was part of the building’s structure and that repairing it was a covered activity under the statute. The trial court erred by limiting its charge to the ladder’s condition alone and disregarding other safety devices. The ruling clarifies that § 240(1) applies to work on structures affixed to buildings and emphasizes the importance of providing adequate safety devices beyond just a safe ladder.
r
r
Facts
r
The decedent, an electrician employed by K & R Electric, sustained fatal injuries after falling from a ladder. He was repairing an electrical sign owned by Ficarra Furniture, attached to a building owned by 1000 Sunrise Highway. The sign was positioned 15 feet above ground level and affixed to the building’s facade. The electrician had not been supplied with safety belts, insulated gloves, hard hats, or scaffolds. An expert witness testified that a Baker-type scaffold and insulated gloves should have been provided, or, if a ladder was used, a safety belt or safety line.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The plaintiff brought a wrongful death action against Ficarra Furniture and 1000 Sunrise Highway, alleging violations of Labor Law § 240. The trial court limited its charge to the jury to the question of the ladder’s condition. The jury found the defendants not liable. The Appellate Division upheld the trial court’s decision, reasoning that Labor Law § 240(1) did not apply because the electric sign was not part of the building or structure. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and granted a new trial.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
1. Whether an electric sign affixed to the facade of a building constitutes part of the