You are here: / / Labor Law 240(1) Action Not Implicated by Portion of Ceiling Falling

Labor Law 240(1) Action Not Implicated by Portion of Ceiling Falling

The Second Department determined a Labor Law 240(1) action should have been dismissed.  As plaintiff was attempting to paint the ceiling while standing on a ladder, a portion of the ceiling fell, causing injury.  In explaining why section 240 does not apply to the facts, the court wrote:

Labor Law § 240(1) requires property owners and contractors to provide workers with “scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection” to the workers (Labor Law § 240[1]). The purpose of the statute is to protect against “such specific gravity-related accidents as falling from a height or being struck by a falling object that was improperly hoisted or inadequately secured”…. “With respect to falling objects, Labor Law § 240(1) applies where the falling of an object is related to a significant risk inherent in . . . the relative elevation . . . at which materials or loads must be positioned or secured'”… . Thus, to recover damages for violation of the statute, a “plaintiff must show more than simply that an object fell causing injury to a worker” … . The plaintiff must show that, at the time the object fell, it was “being hoisted or secured” (id. at 268) or “required securing for the purposes of the undertaking”… . Flossos v Waterside Redevelopment Co LP, 2013 NY Slip Op 05297, 2nd Dept 7-17-13

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED ASSAULT AND BATTERY BY POLICE OFFICERS; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE ASSAULT AND BATTERY IS INTENTIONAL, NOT NEGLIGENT, CONDUCT; THE IMMUNITY AFFORDED POLICE OFFICERS RE: ASSAULT AND BATTERY EXTENDS ONLY TO “OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE” CONDUCT; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE POLICE CONDUCT WAS OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DRIVER HAD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PLAINTIFF APPARENTLY PULLED OUT OF A DRIVEWAY IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT KEPT A PROPER LOOKOUT (SECOND DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE JUDGE CAN PROPERLY AWARD COUNSEL FEES TO PETITIONER BASED UPON RESPONDENT’S VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION, A HEARING IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF THE FEE (SECOND DEPT).
FEDERAL TAX RETURNS AND EMAILS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211 (A)(1); THE MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED A PETITION SEEKING AN ORDER FOR FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT RESIDENT STATUS.
A POLICE OFFICER DIRECTING TRAFFIC IS PERFORMING A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION REQUIRING THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION; THE OFFICER AND THE CITY ARE THEREFORE IMMUNE FROM LIABLITY FOR A RELATED ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT DID NOT COME FORWARD WITH A NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR STRIKING THE REAR OF PLAINTFF’S STOPPED CAR; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Admissions in Pleadings, Including the Failure to Deny an Allegation, Are Always In Evidence for All Purposes in a Trial

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

Firefighter Rule Prohibiting Negligence Suit by Injured Police Officer Applied/Action... Review Criteria for Municipal Disability Hearing Explained