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
ASSAULT THIRD IS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF ASSAULT SECOND; THE ASSAULT THIRD CONVICTION REVERSED AND THE COUNT DISMISSED; THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE HOSPITAL WAS NOT LIABLE IN ORDINARY NEGLIGENCE FOR RELEASING PLAINTIFF AND NOT ENSURING A SAFE RETURN HOME, THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE.
Evidence of Prior Uncharged Offenses Involving the Same Behavior and Against the Same Victim as Alleged in the Charged Offense Deemed Admissible to Prove Motive, Intent and to Provide Necessary Background Information About the Nature of the Relationship Between the Victim and Defendant
THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY HAD BEGUN WORKING FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE AT THE TIME DEFENDANT ENTERED HIS PLEA; DEFENDANT WAS THEREBY DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL; PLEA VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED PETITIONER-SEX-OFFENDER’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IN THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW ARTICLE 10 CIVIL COMMITMENT PROCEEDING (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING AGAINST STEPMOTHER, THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ORDERS OF PROTECTION IN FAVOR OF THE CHILDREN WERE NOT MET (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION CASE, THE INVESTIGATOR’S ASKING DEFENDANT WHERE HE RESIDED WAS DESIGNED TO ELICIT AN INCRIMINATING RESPONSE, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE WAS NOT PEDIGREE INFORMATION AND A CPL 710.30 NOTICE WAS REQUIRED, ADMISSION OF THE STATEMENT WAS HARMLESS ERROR HOWEVER (FOURTH DEPT).
Inadvertently Disseminated Investigative Report [Concerning a Doctor’s Conduct With Respect to Plaintiff’s Decedent] Generated by the Office of Professional Medical Conduct Is Not Discoverable—Matter Must Be Returned to the “Status Quo Prior to the [Inadvertent] Disclosure”

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Late Notice of Claim Can Be Allowed Even in Absence of Reasonable Excuse Where... Rule Requiring Submission of Order or Judgment for Signature within 60 Days...