James M. Boyce, Construction Attorney in Melville, New York

James is an experienced litigator with over fifteen years of experience. During the course of his career James has represented design professionals in a wide variety of construction law matters, including construction defect, delay and personal injury claims. In addition, he has represented design professionals in fee disputes and is also available to assist in contract review as a pre-emptive measure to avoid potential litigation. James comes from a proud family of engineers dating back to his grandfather who worked with Robert Moses in designing and building Jones Beach on Long Island. Prior to becoming a lawyer, James worked at his father's engineering firm assisting on numerous highway and roadway projects throughout the New York metropolitan area.

James also has vast experience in representing design professionals, owners, contractors and subcontractors in New York State Labor Law matters. Where possible, James obtains early resolution of all claims by way of obtaining voluntary discontinuances or by motion practice. If an early resolution cannot be achieved, James has the skill and know how to vigorously defend all claims up to an including mediation and trial.

When James is not busy representing the interests of his clients, he enjoys spending time with family, attending his son's baseball games, swimming and surfing.

Published Works

•“A Fall in the Right Direction: The Court of Appeals Requires More Than Just a Fall to Show a Violation of New York Labor Law 240,” Defense Digest, Vol. 28, No. 12, December 2022

Thought Leadership

Defense Digest

A Fall in the Right Direction: The Court of Appeals Requires More Than Just a Fall to Show a Violation of New York Labor Law 240

December 1, 2022

Key Points: New York Labor Law 240 imposes strict liability against owners and contractors for height-related accidents.In Cutaia, the Court of Appeals now requires that plaintiffs prove that a ladder is defective or failed, and that it is the cause of an accident.Plaintiffs must do more than show that a fall occurred to prove a violation of New York Labor Law 240(1).As you may be aware, New York Labor Law 240 imposes strict liability against owners and contractors for height-related accidents. New York Labor Law 240(1), also known as the scaffold law, provides in relevant part:All contractors and owners and their agents, except owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work, in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of such labor, scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed.Cases in New York State involving falls from a ladder have persistently proven to be arduous claims to defend against. Significantly, plaintiffs’ attorneys have relied on prior rulings that established that, if a ladder fails in some manner (i.e., it moved, shifted or swayed) because it was unsecured, then it was inherently inadequate to perform the work and, therefore, the use of the ladder was a per se violation of New York Labor Law 240. When being faced with case of a fall from a ladder, defense counsel faces a seemingly insurmountable task of succeeding on liability.But wait-all hope is not yet lost. In the recent decision of Cutaia v. Board of Managers of the 160.170 Varick Ste. Codo., 190 N.E.3d 28 (N.Y. 2022), the Court of Appeals held that questions of fact existed regarding whether “the ladder failed to provide the proper protection,” whether the “plaintiff should have been provided with additional safety devices,” and whether the ladder’s purported inadequacy or the absence of additional safety devices was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s accident.In Cutaia, the plaintiff was using a ladder to cut and re-route ceiling pipes. Due to space limitations, the plaintiff leaned an A-frame ladder in its closed position against the wall. During the course of his work, he was electrocuted and fell from the ladder. The plaintiff had no recollection of whether the ladder had failed thereby precipitating his fall. The Appellate Division, First Department, like its brethren before it, held that the failure to properly secure the ladder was the precise foreseeable elevation-related risk against which Section 240(1) was designed to protect. Accordingly, the use of the ladder was a per se violation of New York Labor Law 240(1).In a departure from the long-standing proposition that a fall from a non-defective ladder in and of itself is a violation of the Labor Law, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court, holding that “questions of fact exist[ed] as to whether ‘the ladder failed to provide proper protection,’ and whether ‘plaintiff should have been provided with additional safety devices.’” In simple terms, the court questioned whether the ladder itself was defective, and required more than just a showing of a fall to prove a violation of New York Labor Law 240(1).The Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Cutaia appears to be a welcome lifeline to the defense bar. Hopefully, gone are the days of plaintiffs’ counsels’ reliance upon the mere use of a ladder to support and prove a Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. After the Cutaia decision, plaintiffs’ counsel will now need to establish that the ladder was defective or failed in some manner, or that it was not the proper device to accomplish a task. Notably, the fact that the ladder shifted, moved or swayed is not enough to show a violation.The long-established principles of proximate cause will once again become a factor in deciding whether a fall from a ladder is a violation of New York Labor Law 240(1). Plaintiffs will need to show that the ladder was defective. Defense counsel may now establish that the plaintiff failed to properly secure or set up the ladder, and argue that, since the ladder was not defective, liability should not attach.

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2025 Shareholder Class And Special Counsel Promotions

December 13, 2024