You are here: / / Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment on Labor Law 240 (1) Cause of Action—Plaintiff...

Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment on Labor Law 240 (1) Cause of Action—Plaintiff Was Standing on an A-Frame Ladder When It Swayed and Tipped Over

The Second Department determined plaintiff, Casasola, was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action.  Plaintiff was standing on an unsecured A-frame ladder when it swayed and tipped over. The incident occurred when Casasola was working on property owned by the State of New York. The court noted that, to be liable, the property owner need not have exercised any control over the work.  All the plaintiff must show is the violation of a statute proximately caused his injury:

Labor Law § 240(1) provides that “[a]ll contractors and owners and their agents . . . shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected . . . scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to [construction workers employed on the premises]” … . The purpose of this statute, commonly referred to as the “scaffold law,” is to protect workers “by placing ultimate responsibility for safety practices at building construction jobs where such responsibility actually belongs, on the owner and general contractor, instead of on workers, who are scarcely in a position to protect themselves from accident” … . Casasola v State of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 04798, 2nd Dept 6-10-15

 

You might also like
Single Step Was Open and Obvious and Not Inherently Dangerous
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE JURY PROPERLY FOUND THE LANDLORD NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO MAINTAIN A HANDRAIL BUT THE LOOSE HANDRAIL WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL (SECOND DEPT). ​
SUPREME COURT LACKED TO POWER TO SUPPRESS DEFENDANT’S PRESENTENCE REPORT IN IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT CONCERNING WHETHER IT HAD ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEGEDLY DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS ESCALATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE, ANY CONFLICT IN PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY DID NOT RENDER IT INCREDIBLE AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT HAD DEFAULTED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE DECISION ILLUSTRATES THE LEVEL OF STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 WHICH IS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO ADD DEFENDANT DESIGN, WHICH HAD A UNITY OF INTEREST WITH DEFENDANT EISENBACH, DESIGN’S CEO; THE PLAINTIFF HAD AGREED TO DISCONTINUE THE TIMELY ACTION AGAINST EISENBACH BASED ON MISREPRESENTATIONS MADE ON EISENBACH’S BEHALF (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS VIOLATED, MOTHER INSTRUCTED NOT TO CONSULT WITH ATTORNEY DURING RECESSES, WHICH WERE EXTENSIVE.
VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 388 (1), WHICH IMPOSES VICARIOUS LIABILITY ON THE OWNER OF A VEHICLE, DOES NOT PERMIT A NEGLIGENT DRIVER TO SUE THE VEHICLE OWNER FOR THE DRIVER’S OWN NEGLIGENCE (SECOND 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

Revocation of Driver’s License for Refusal of the Chemical Test Reversed—No... Plaintiff Who Fell From Scaffolding Which Did Not Have Safety Rails Entitled...