You are here: / / Glass Plate in Wall Under Demolition Was Not a “Falling Object” within the...

Glass Plate in Wall Under Demolition Was Not a “Falling Object” within the Meaning of Labor Law 240 (1)

The Second Department determined injury caused by a glass plate that cracked and fell on plaintiff during demolition was not a “falling object” injury within the meaning of Labor Law 240 (1) because the glass did not requiring securing and the accident was not due to the absence of safety equipment:

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). Not every object that falls on a worker gives rise to the extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240(1) ….. To recover, a plaintiff must show that, at the time the object fell, it was being hoisted or secured, or “required securing for the purposes of the undertaking”…. The plaintiff also must show that the object fell “because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute” …. Here, the glass pane that caused the plaintiff’s injuries was slated for demolition at the time of the accident, and the defendants established, prima facie, that the glass pane was not an object that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking, that is, the demolition… .  Maldonado v AMMM Props Co, 2013 NY Slip Op 04781, 2nd Dept 6-26-13

 

You might also like
TRIAL COURT FAILED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY THAT FINDING DEFENDANT NOT GUILTY OF THE TOP COUNT BASED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE PRECLUDED CONSIDERATION OF THE LESSER COUNTS, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ANALYTICAL CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO PAY ATTORNEY’S FEES AS ORDERED BY THE COURT, THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT FRIVOLOUS AND SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED FOR BRINGING THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT).
PROPERTY OWNER’S LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD THAT DID NOT HAVE SAFETY RAILINGS IS BASED UPON ITS STATUS AS AN OWNER, NOT NEGLIGENCE, THEREFORE PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION FROM GENERAL CONTRACTOR (SECOND DEPT).
Sua Sponte Dismissal for Lack of Standing Improper—Defense Waived by Failure to Answer—Lack of Standing is Not a Jurisdictional Defect
ALTHOUGH THE ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY DOES NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION THE REAR DRIVER WAS NEGLIGENT IN A REAR-END COLLISION, THE REAR-DRIVER’S ALLEGATION THE PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY FOR NO APPARENT REASON CREATES A QUESTION OF FACT ON THE ISSUE OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO DISCLAIM BASED UPON AN EXCLUSION DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO COVERAGE WHICH DOES NOT EXIST.
YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION PROPERLY USED TO DETERMINE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) RISK LEVEL.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Worker Taking Onsite Measurements for Offsite Fabrication Covered Under Labor... Hospital Can Be Vicariously Liable for Actions of Non-employee Physician Under...