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
CAUSES OF ACTION SEEKING TO ENFORCE A ZONING ORDINANCE AND COVENANTS IN ANOTHER’S DEED PROPERLY DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION MUST BE MADE IN EVERY CASE WHERE DEFENDANT IS ELIGIBLE, CARE REMITTED FOR THAT DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT).
INDICTMENT DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS, DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT TO DELAY FOR DNA TEST RESULTS.
PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW SOURCE OF FALLING WOOD WHICH STRUCK HIM, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE, AS MATTER OF LAW, A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240(1).
Deed-Escrow Conditions Never Satisfied—Transfer Never Took Place
THE BANK’S PROOF THAT THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED TO THE DEFENDANTS WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DESPITE THE EXPRESS EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES IN THE CONTRACT BETWEEN DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY AND DEFENDANT THEATER, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED A COMMON-LAW DUTY OWED BY THE SECURITY COMPANY TO PLAINTIFF, THE SECURITY COMPANY ALLEGEDLY DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO RESTRAIN A NONPARTY WHO THEN ASSAULTED AND INJURED PLAINTIFF.
JUDGE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL BY ASKING QUESTIONS OF WITNESSES AND INTERRUPTING CROSS-EXAMINATION (SECOND 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 © 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...