You are here: / / Lateral Shift of Heavy Equipment, Which Pinned Plaintiff Against a Column,...

Lateral Shift of Heavy Equipment, Which Pinned Plaintiff Against a Column, Not Gravity-Related—Not Covered Under Labor Law 240 (1)

The First Department determined Supreme Court should have dismissed plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action because plaintiff’s injury was not caused by a falling object. Plaintiff was moving an 8000 pound piece of equipment across a flat platform when the equipment shifted laterally and pinned plaintiff against a column. Because the accident did not flow from the application of the force of gravity, it was not covered under Labor Law 240 (1):

Plaintiff and his coworkers were moving a piece of an 8,000-pound piece of equipment across a flat platform. The ultimate goal was to place the equipment onto the forks of a forklift. Plaintiff testified that because two wheels broke off, the workers were pushing and pulling the equipment when it pinned him against a column on the side of the platform. Plaintiff testified that they did not lift the equipment into the air, and that it did not fall. Nor did he know what caused the equipment to shift laterally towards his side. Plaintiff’s testimony established that the piece of equipment that pinned him to the column was not a “falling object” and that he was not a “falling worker,” and the accident did not otherwise flow from the application of the force of gravity. Thus, he was not covered by Labor Law § 240(1) under the current case law … . Martinez v 342 Prop. LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 03770, 1st Dept 5-5-15

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS BUS-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE, EVEN IF THE CROSSING LIGHT CHANGED WHILE PLAINTIFF WAS CROSSING HE WAS ENTITLED TO PROCEED (FIRST DEPT).
THE CONTRACTOR THAT HIRED THE SUBCONTRACTOR FOR WHICH THE INJURED PLAINTIFF WORKED WAS THE CONDOMINIUM DEFENDANTS’ STATUTORY AGENT AND THEREFORE CAN BE HELD LIABLE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
POLICE DEPARTMENT CAN REFUSE EMPLOYMENT IN A CIVILIAN POSITION BASED SOLELY UPON THE APPLICANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD WITHOUT APPLYING THE HIRING CRITERIA GENERALLY REQUIRED BY THE CORRECTIONS LAW.
“Plain View” Doctrine Does Not Require Certainty Seized Item Is Contraband
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD RECEIVE JAIL TIME IF HE VIOLATED THE PLEA AGREEMENT, HE WAS NOT TOLD HE COULD BE SENTENCED TO STATE PRISON, PLEA VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO PRESERVE VIDEO WHICH WOULD HAVE SHOWN THE CONDITION OF THE FLOOR PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL JUSTIFIED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).
THERE WAS NO PROOF THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304 WAS MAILED TO THE PROPER ADDRESS (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SECURITY GUARD WHO RECOVERED STOLEN PROPERTY FROM HIM WAS LICENSED TO EXERCISE POLICE POWERS OR WAS ACTING AS AN AGENT OF THE POLICE (FIRST 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

Records of Pedigree Information Which Was Linked to the Defendant and Was Supplied... Supervision, Even If Inadequate, Could Not Have Prevented Injury Caused by the...