Second Department Finds Question of Fact as to Whether Plaintiff Was "Permitted to Work" Within the Meaning of the Labor Law

In Aslam v. Neighborhood Partnership Hous. Dev. Fund, the plaintiff was injured in a fall from a scaffold.  The plaintiff testified that he had received permission from his employer to work on the building, but the defendants owner and general contractor argued that plaintiff was expressly prohibited from working on the building.  The Second Department found that defendants had raised a question of fact as to whether plaintiff was "permitted or suffered to work" on the building, a requirement for the Labor Law to apply.