In this 240(1) action, the Third Department determined Supreme Court erred when it found that the accident did not arise form a physically significant elevation differential. Plaintiff was struck by part of a roll carrier (re: a roll of roofing membrane) after the roll fell to the roof. Prior to the incident the roll carrier had been positioned about a foot and a half above the roof:
In determining whether an elevation differential is physically significant or de minimis, we must take into account “‘the weight of the [falling] object and the amount of force it was capable of generating, even over the course of a relatively short descent'” … . Here, for purposes of defendants’ motion, plaintiff established that a membrane roll weighing between 600 and 800 pounds was hoisted by the roll carrier to a height of approximately 1½ feet off the roof’s surface at the time of the accident. In our view, despite the relatively short distance that the membrane roll fell, it constituted a significant elevation differential given its substantial weight and the powerful force it generated when it fell, so as to require a safety device as set forth in Labor Law § 240 (1) … . Accordingly, Supreme Court should not have granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action on this basis. Jackson v Heitman Funds/191 Colonie LLC. 516248, 3rd Dept 11-27-13