You are here: / / 241 (6) Cause of Action Improperly Dismissed—Plaintiff Tripped on...

241 (6) Cause of Action Improperly Dismissed—Plaintiff Tripped on Piece of Metal Protruding from Stair

The Third Department determined Supreme Court should not have dismissed plaintiff’s Labor Law 241 (6) claim against the general contractor (Glenman).  Plaintiff tripped and fell down a stairwell when his shoe was punctured by a piece of metal protruding from a stair:

Supreme Court improvidently dismissed plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against Glenman. Notably, “Labor Law § 241 (6), by its very terms, imposes a nondelegable duty of reasonable care upon owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to persons employed in, or lawfully frequenting, all areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed” … . “To establish a claim under Labor Law § 241 (6), [a] plaintiff must allege that [the] defendant[] violated a rule or regulation promulgated by the Commissioner of Labor that sets forth a specific standard of conduct” … . “[O]nce it has been alleged that a concrete specification of [such a rule or regulation] has been violated, it is for the jury to determine whether the negligence of some party to, or participant in, the construction project caused plaintiff’s injury” … .

Here, plaintiff relies upon 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1), which provides:”(e) Tripping and other hazards.(1) Passageways. All passageways shall be kept free from accumulations of dirt and debris and from any other obstructions or conditions which could cause tripping. Sharp projections which could cut or puncture any person shall be removed or covered.” This regulation appropriately “mandat[es] compliance with concrete specifications” as required to state a claim under Labor Law § 241 (6) … .  Marshall v Glenman Indus & Commercial Contr Corp, 20-14 NY Slip Op 02987, 3rd Dept 5-1-14

 

You might also like
Breach of Contract Lawsuit Precluded by Claimant’s Failure to Comply With Notice Requirements Which Were Conditions Precedent—Alleged Misconduct by Defendant Did Not Prevent Compliance with Conditions Precedent—Conditions Precedent Not Waived by Defendant’s Participation In an Attempt to Resolve the Dispute
DECISION WITHHELD AND PEOPLE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE DEFENSE APPELLATE COUNSEL WITH TRIAL EXHIBITS COUNSEL WAS UNABLE TO ACCESS (THIRD DEPT).
Defendant’s “Agency” Defense to a Drug Sale Addressed Under a “Weight of the Evidence” Review (Defense Was Disproved Beyond a Reasonable Doubt)
ALTHOUGH THE PLANS FOR THE EXPANSION OF A HOSPITAL WERE NOT YET FINALIZED, IT WAS CLEAR THAT SUCH AN EXPANSION WAS AN ANTICIPATED RESULT OF THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE; THEREFORE THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) PROHIBITION OF “SEGMENTATION” REQUIRED CONSIDERATION OF THE EXPANSION AS PART OF THE “HARD LOOK” AT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ZONING CHANGE (THIRD DEPT).
ABSENT A MOTION BY A PARTY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE ACTION BASED UPON DEFECTIVE SERVICE (THIRD DEPT).
THE RECORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PARENTS COULD NOT COMMUNICATE ABOUT THE NEEDS OF THE CHILD AND THEREFORE DID NOT SUPPORT AWARDING SOLE CUSTODY TO FATHER; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE LEFT IT UP TO THE PARTIES TO CRAFT A PARENTING-TIME SCHEDULE; A CHILD’S TESTIMONY IN A LINCOLN HEARING HAS NO INDEPENDENT EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND MUST BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL (THIRD DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT BASED UPON LAW OFFICE FAILURE AND PROOF OF A MERITORIOUS DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CLUTTER AT A DAY CARE CENTER WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND WHETHER A BICYCLE RIDDEN BY A THREE-YEAR-OLD WAS A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT REQUIRING SUPERVISION BY THE OPERATOR OF THE DAY CARE CENTER (THIRD 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

Preservation by Objection Not Required When Defendant First Learns of Post-Release... Question of Fact Whether Defendants Assumed a Duty of Reasonable Care When Escorting...