In Digangi v New York City Sch. Constr. Auth. (2026), the plaintiff slipped on an icy step while exiting the cockpit of a compact track loader, or "skidsteer" and fell approximately three feet to the ground. The Second Department affirmed summary judgment dismissing the § 240(1) claim and affirmed the denial of plaintiff's cross-motion on that claim. 

The Court held that the approximately three-foot descent from the loader step "was not an elevation-related risk for the purposes of Labor Law § 240(1)." The decision is also useful in § 241(6). The Court dismissed the 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) predicate because the loader steps were not a "floor, passageway, walkway, scaffold, platform, or other elevated working surface" covered by that regulation. It held that Industrial Code predicates not addressed in opposition or on appeal were abandoned, and reiterated that an OSHA violation does not provide a basis for § 241(6) liability. 

For defense counsel, Digangi reinforces the importance of defining the actual gravity-related risk rather than focusing simply on the fact that a worker fell from an elevated location. It also supports attacking each § 241(6) predicate on the precise physical location and regulatory language, while preserving abandonment arguments when the plaintiff does not defend particular predicates. 

The Court modified only in part. The § 241(6) claim survived on 12 NYCRR 23-1.30, where neither side eliminated issues of fact on illumination and proximate cause. The § 200 and common-law negligence claims survived because defendants submitted no climatological data and did not establish a lack of notice of the icy condition.