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
THE CUSTODY RULING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE WITHOUT A BEST INTERESTS HEARING; FATHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED ON COMPLIANCE WITH TREATMENT (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS “BAR FIGHT” “INADEQUATE SECURITY” ACTION, THE DEFENDANT BAR HAD TIMELY SUED ITS SECURITY COMPANY AS A THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT; AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED, PLAINTIFF SOUGHT TO SUE THE SECURITY COMPANY DIRECTLY UNDER A “RELATION BACK” THEORY; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SERVE AND FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST THE SECURITY COMPANY DIRECTLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT; BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF BANK NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE TO BE ENTITLED TO A DEFAULT JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
TENANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT EXACERBATE THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK BY ITS EFFORTS TO REMOVE SNOW AND THE PROPERTY OWNER AND MANAGER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CONVICTION AFFIRMED BUT STRONG DISSENT ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE HE WORE THE SAME PRISON-ISSUE CLOTHES FOR EIGHT DAYS (SECOND DEPT
FAMILY COURT DID NOT MAKE SURE APPELLANT UNDERSTOOD THE CONSEQUENCES OF PROCEEDING WITHOUT COUNSEL IN THIS ORDER OF PROTECTION MATTER, ORDER OF PROTECTION REVERSED.
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE AGAINST NYC, AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE, ONCE THE CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH CAUSED THE FALL, THE PLAINTIFF MUST COME FOWARD WITH EVIDENCE AN EXCEPTION TO THE WRITTEN-NOTICE REQUIREMENT APPLIES, EVEN IF, AS HERE, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES NO EXCEPTION APPLIES; CASE LAW TO THE CONTRARY SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL REVERSED (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 © 2026 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...