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
“Falling Objects” Protection Afforded by Labor Law 240 (1) Explained
Court Should Not Have Deferred, Over Defense Counsel’s Objection, to Defendant’s Request that the Jury Not Be Charged on a Lesser Included Offense—To Do So Denies Defendant His Right to the Expert Judgment of Counsel
NO PRETRIAL NOTICE OF IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY BY A POLICE OFFICER, CONVICTION REVERSED.
ALTHOUGH SECONDARY EVIDENCE (HEARSAY TESTIMONY) AND EXTRINSIC DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE FOR COLLATERAL MATTERS LIKE IMPEACHING CREDIBILITY, SUCH EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE WHEN IT IS RELEVANT TO A CORE ISSUE; HERE THE CONTENTS OF A NOTE PRESENTED TO A BANK EMPLOYEE WAS RELEVANT TO THE ‘THREATENED USE OF FORCE ‘ ELEMENT OF ROBBERY (FOURTH DEPT).
Knowledge of Dangerous Condition May Make Owner Liable Even Where Owner Exercises No Supervisory Control Over Contractor’s Operation.
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY FOUND THAT THE OFFICER DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO STOP DEFENDANT ON THE STREET, DETAIN HIM, SEARCH HIS BAG AND TRANSPORT HIM TO THE BURGLARY SCENE FOR A SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION (FOURTH DEPT).
THERE SHOULD ONLY BE ONE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING BASED UPON THE SAME RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI); HERE THERE WERE TWO ASSESSMENTS IN TWO COUNTIES, ONE AT LEVEL TWO AND ONE AT LEVEL THREE; THE LEVEL THREE RISK ASSESSMENT WAS VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).
COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NO EVIDENCE SHELTER PERSONNEL WERE AWARE OF VICIOUS PROPENSITIES; HEALTH DEPARTMENT’S KNOWLEDGE THE DOG HAD BITTEN SOMEONE ELSE NOT IMPUTED TO SHELTER PERSONNEL; NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.

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...