You are here: / / Violation of an Industrial Code Provision Does Not Conclusively Establish...

Violation of an Industrial Code Provision Does Not Conclusively Establish Negligence in a Labor Law 241 (6) Action

The Fourth Department noted that the fact that an Industrial Code provision was violated does not establish negligence sufficient to support partial summary judgment: “Despite our conclusion that defendants violated 12 NYCRR 23-9.5 (c), we reject plaintiff’s contention that he is entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of defendants’ liability with respect to the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. A violation of an Industrial Code provision ‘does not establish negligence as a matter of law but is merely some evidence to be considered on the question of a defendant’s negligence’…”.   Whether there was a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-9.5 (c) turned on whether plaintiff was a member of an “excavation crew.” If he was not, then his proximity to the equipment which injured him violated the provision. If he was a member of an “excavation crew,” the provision was not violated.  The majority determined plaintiff was not a member of a “crew” because he was the only person there.  The two dissenting judges disagreed and argued plaintiff was a member of an “excavation crew” within the meaning of the provision. Vanderwall v 1255 Portland Ave. LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 03959, 4th Dept 5-8-15

 

You might also like
THE SENTENCE FOR CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONCURRENT WITH THE SENTENCE FOR MURDER (FOURTH DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD A CUSTODY HEARING WITHOUT FATHER’S PARTICIPATION (FOURTH DEPT).
COMPREHENSIVE DISCUSSION OF THE PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR THE ISSUANCE AND QUASHING OF SUBPOENAS IN THIS FRAUD ACTION STEMMING FROM HIGH CREDITWORTHINESS RATINGS GIVEN TO RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (FOURTH DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT DROVE THE SHOOTER TO AND AWAY FROM THE MURDER SCENE; BUT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE DEFENDANT SHARED THE SHOOTER’S INTENT TO KILL; DEFENDANT’S MURDER CONVICTION AS AN ACCOMPLICE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE REAR-END COLLISION OCCURRED; DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING HIS OWN CAR TO WORK.
New York’s Seatbelt Defense Applies to Action Stemming from Pennsylvania Accident (Where There Is No Seatbelt Defense)—Defense Is Not a Conduct-Regulating Law (Which Would Trigger the Application of Pennsylvania Law)—Rather the Defense Relates to the Allocation of Damages (Which Supports the Application of New York Law)
FATHER AND MOTHER SUBMITTED INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ON THE ISSUE WHETHER THE CHILDREN WERE CONSTRUCTIVELY EMANCIPATED; FATHER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS PETITION TO TERMINATE HIS CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS WAS PROPERLY DENIED BUT MOTHER’S PETITION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING FATHER’S PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
UNNECESSARILY ALLOWING THE JURY TO KNOW DEFENDANT WAS A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY ANY REASONABLE DEFENSE STRATEGY, DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, CONVICTION REVERSED.

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

Reports by Attorneys Which Relate to an Insurer’s Decision to Accept or... Landlord Failed to Eliminate Triable Issues of Fact Concerning Whether He Had...