In D'Alto v. 22-24 129th St., LLC, an interesting decision that was rendered just last week, New York's Appellate Division, Second Department held that despite the fact that cement truck driver Michael D'Alto was roughly 100 feet away from the construction site when he fell from his truck and sustained serious personal injuries, nevertheless, he was still entitled to recover damages under NY Labor Law 240(1), because:
"Labor Law § 240(1) is to be construed as liberally as may be for the accomplishment of the purpose for which it was thus framed'" (Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 513, quoting Quigley v Thatcher, 207 NY 66, 68; see Zimmer v Chemung County Performing Arts, 65 NY2d 513, 520-521), namely, "to protect construction workers not from routine workplace risks, but from the pronounced risks arising from construction work site elevation differentials" (Runner v New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 NY3d 599, 603; see Lombardi v Stout, 80 NY2d 290, 296).
"That the particular work was being performed at a distance from the site of immediate construction is of no consequence, as it is certain that the work was necessitated by virtue of the [cement being prepared for use] in the construction [site] and was incidental to its movement [to] the construction area" (Struble v John Arborio, Inc., 74 AD2d 55, 57; cf. Koch v E.C.H. Holding Corp., 248 AD2d 510).
This result is not altogether surprising.
It is consistent with the trial Court's holding in Matz v. Laboratory of Merchandising, where the Court held that even a building architect was protected by Labor Law 240(1).