You are here: / / Scaffold, Safety Railing and Cross Braces Are Safety Devices

Scaffold, Safety Railing and Cross Braces Are Safety Devices

In affirming the denial of summary judgment to the plaintiff in a Labor Law 240 (1) action based upon plaintiff’s fall from a scaffold, the Fourth Department noted that a scaffold, safety railing and cross braces are safety devices:

We agree with defendants … that the scaffold itself and the safety railing and cross braces on it constitute safety devices, and that the evidence submitted by plaintiff raises an issue of fact whether the safety devices provided by defendants afforded him proper protection, or whether additional devices were necessary … .

Justice Whalen dissented, arguing that, under the circumstances of plaintiff’s work on the scaffold, the safety railing and cross railings were not adequate safety devices. Kuntz v WNYG Housing Development Fund Company, Inc., et al, 1382, CA 12-00986, 4th Dept. 3-22-13

 

You might also like
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH EMPLOYMENT AND DEFAMATION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED; ELEMENTS EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).
TRAFFIC CONCERNS JUSTIFIED THE ZONING BOARD’S RESTRICTIONS ON A RESTAURANT’S HOURS OF OPERATION AND REQUIREMENT FOR VALET PARKING (FOURTH DEPT).
Reference to Old Offense that Was Dismissed Okay in “Mental Abnormality/Dangerous Sex Offender” Proceeding
NO DEMONSTRATION A PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION OF AN AMBIGUOUS CONTRACT WAS THE ONLY FAIR INTERPRETATION; THEREFORE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WERE PROPERLY DENIED.
Written Notice of Defect Under Housing Merchant Implied Warranty Waived by Undertaking Repair
Father’s Parental Rights Should Not Have Been Terminated Pursuant to Social Services Law 384-b Which Is Relevant Solely to Destitute or Dependent Children
DEFENDANT’S FOR CAUSE JUROR CHALLENGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT OWNS A VINEYARD IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN AN ALL-TERRAIN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY PURSUANT TO GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 9-103 BECAUSE THE VINEYARD WAS “SUITABLE FOR RECREATIONAL USE” (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Ice and Snow Accumulation of Floor of Building Constituted Negligence as a Matter... Summary Judgment In Favor of Plaintiff-Company in Trespass Action Against Protesters...