You are here: / / Absence of “Altering” and Readily Observable Risk Precluded Suit

Absence of “Altering” and Readily Observable Risk Precluded Suit

The First Department determined plaintiff’s fall from a metal roof did not meet the criteria for a Labor Law 240(1) because attaching a temorary sign was not “altering” for purposes of the statute.  In addition the First Department determined the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence actions should be dismissed because the risks inherent in walking on a pitched metal roof were readily observable.  Bodtman v Living Manor Love, Inc, et al, 9703, 113921/08, 1st Dept 4-2-13

 

You might also like
IN THIS LEAD-PAINT EXPOSURE CASE, DISCOVERY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO DOCUMENTS CONCERNING ONLY THE APARTMENTS INFANT PLAINTIFF SPENT TIME IN, THE CONDITION OF OTHER PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING MAY BE RELEVANT TO DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE.
COURT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE FUTURE EARNING CAPACITY OF THE PARTIES IN CONNECTION WITH MOTHER’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, MOTHER ENTITLED TO A HEARING (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A SIDEWALK BRIDGE PLAINTIFF WAS DISMANTLING; ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS SUPPLIED WITH A HARNESS, THERE WAS NO PLACE TO ATTACH THE SAFETY LINE (FIRST DEPT).
Statute of Limitations Starts When the Alleged Malpractice Occurred, Not When Plaintiff Becomes Aware of It/Continuous Representation Doctrine Can Not Be Invoked to Toll Statute of Limitations When Plaintiff Was Notified Representation Was Formally Closed
“Crime-Fraud” Exception to Attorney-Client Privilege Re: Studies Funded by Defendant Casting Doubt on Relationship Between Asbestos and Cancer
The Fact that Plaintiff’s Testimony Was the Only Evidence of the Defect Which Caused Her to Fall (a Hole in a Worn Rubber Mat) Did Not Render the Evidence Insufficient to Support the Plaintiff’s Verdict
THE ORDER DENYING A MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY A PRIOR ORDER DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR AN ORDER “APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT” AND THEREFORE WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION; THE CRITERIA FOR AN “ORDER APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT” WERE EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT)
THE PROMISE TO REPAY THE LOAN WAS NOT UNCONDITIONAL BUT RATHER THE DEFENDANT’S HAVING AVAILABLE CASH TO REPAY THE LOAN WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT HAD AVAILABLE CASH, ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST 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

Expired Fire Fighters’ Collective Bargaining Agreement Was Not “In Effect”... Bank’s Duty With Respect to Negligent Dishonoring of a Cashier’s Check ...