New York

In Coombs v. Izzo Gen. Contr., the Appellate Division, First Department determined that the building's superintendent was not a protected person under Labor Law secs. 240(1) and 241(6).  The building was undergoing demolition and construction. 

The Court noted that

[the] plaintiff did not perform work integral or necessary to the completion of the construction project, nor was he ?a member of a team that undertook an enumerated activity under a construction contract? * * *. As superintendent of the building, [the] plaintiff was responsible for maintaining the building, keeping it clean, supervising the building staff, and watching for unsafe conditions. Although the demolition and construction work made his job more difficult insofar as it affected the portion of the building that was not under construction, [the] plaintiff was not responsible for inspecting the areas of the building under construction. Nor was he responsible for performing any work related to the construction, and his job duties did not change after the project commenced