Brian J Shoot

February 13, 2015 | New York Law Journal

In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot writes: Many of the injured workers who seek recovery under Sections 240 or 241[6] of the Labor Law also plead violations of Section 200 of that law. Much has been written about the so-called "scaffold statute" and §241[6], which imposes vicarious liability for certain Industrial code violations. Yet there has been comparatively little analysis concerning the even more frequently invoked provisions of Labor Law §200.

By Brian J. Shoot

14 minute read

February 11, 2015 | New York Law Journal

In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot writes: Many of the injured workers who seek recovery under Sections 240 or 241[6] of the Labor Law also plead violations of Section 200 of that law. Much has been written about the so-called "scaffold statute" and §241[6], which imposes vicarious liability for certain Industrial code violations. Yet there has been comparatively little analysis concerning the even more frequently invoked provisions of Labor Law §200.

By Brian J. Shoot

14 minute read

November 14, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot writes: Myth is often more compelling than fact, particularly when the myth plays to our misconceptions. So, is it true, as New York Labor Law §240 reformers have claimed, that "several courts have held that a plaintiff's intoxication at the time of the incident cannot constitute a defense to a Scaffold Law claim"? The answer is, in a word, No.

By Brian J. Shoot

13 minute read

August 01, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In his Construction Accident Litigation, Brian J. Shoot discusses distinguishing a "repair," which is expressly covered by the so-called scaffold statute, from "routine maintenance," which is not; and the "sole proximate cause" defense, which will bar a plaintiff-worker's recovery when there was no statutory violation and the accident was solely caused by the plaintiff.

By Brian J. Shoot

10 minute read

May 09, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot writes: Per a Court of Appeals decision rendered earlier this year, Labor Law §240(1) applies only if the plaintiff demonstrates that the object that fell was being hoisted or secured at the time it fell, or "required securing for the purposes of the undertaking." The first option is simple enough. But when does an object "require securing"? For that matter, what is the pertinent "undertaking"?

By Brian J. Shoot

14 minute read

February 07, 2014 | New York Law Journal

In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot, a partner with Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, writes: Hardly a week passes in which the Appellate Division does not approve the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff under Labor Law the so-called "scaffold statute." But can summary judgment ever be appropriately awarded to the plaintiff pursuant to Labor Law §241(6)? The arguments, and authorities, go both ways.

By Brian J. Shoot

14 minute read

May 15, 2013 | New York Law Journal

By Brian J. Shoot

3 minute read

April 16, 2013 | New York Law Journal

In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot, a partner with Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, writes that proponents of "reform" typically argue that New York is alone in imposing "absolute liability" as to work site accidents and that the resultant insurance costs place a unique and undue burden upon New York landowners and builders.

By Brian J. Shoot

13 minute read

April 26, 2012 | New York Law Journal

In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot, a partner at Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, writes that, as the Court of Appeals confirmed earlier this year, the scope of Labor Law �240(1) is in some respects much broader than that of its sister statute.

By Brian J. Shoot

11 minute read

January 31, 2013 | New York Law Journal

In his Construction Accident Litigation column, Brian J. Shoot, a partner with Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, asks: Who are the "owners" for purposes of sections 240 and 241(6) of the Labor Law when a proprietary lessee of a cooperative or condominium hires a contractor to do work in "his" or "her" apartment?

By Brian J. Shoot

13 minute read