You are here: / / Labor Law 240 (1) Concerns Only Whether Proper Safety Equipment Was Provided—Comparative...

Labor Law 240 (1) Concerns Only Whether Proper Safety Equipment Was Provided—Comparative Negligence Is Not Relevant

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment under Labor Law 240 (1) for injury incurred while using the top half of an extension ladder which did not have rubber feet. The court noted that contributory or comparative negligence is not a defense to a Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action:

Plaintiff presented evidence establishing that defendants did not provide “proper protection” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1). The record indicates that plaintiff “only saw the extension ladder” in the area where he was working. There was no scaffolding available to plaintiff. Plaintiff was not wearing a safety harness, and there was no appropriate anchor point to tie off the ladder.

We reject defendants’ assertion that plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Plaintiff’s knowing use of half of the extension ladder without proper rubber footings goes to his culpable conduct and comparative negligence. Comparative negligence is not a defense to a claim based on Labor Law § 240(1), where, as here, defendants failed to provide adequate safety devices … . Further, defendants failed to show that plaintiff refused to use the safety devices that were provided to him. Stankey v Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y., 2015 NY Slip Op 06643, 1st Dept 8-25-15

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF FELL ABOUT NINE FEET FROM ONE FLOOR TO ANOTHER, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
IF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN A MOTION TO RENEW WAS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION, THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE IT MUST BE EXPLAINED; HERE THE FAILURE WAS NOT EXPLAINED AND THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
IN A FORECLOSURE CONTEXT, THE BANK, WHEN MOVING FOR A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT, GETS TWO CHANCES TO DEMONSTRATE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY; IF THE FIRST SUBMISSION IS DEEMED INADEQUATE, THE BANK MUST BE ALLOWED TO TRY AGAIN (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST A SECURITY COMPANY HIRED BY KMART SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A FIGHT WITH A KMART EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN KMART AND THE SECURITY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RELY ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SECURITY COMPANY’S DUTIES, AND THE SECURITY COMPANY DID NOT FULLY DISPLACE KMART’S DUTY TO PROVIDE SECURITY (ESPINAL FACTORS) (FIRST DEPT).
MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT.
FAILURE TO SHOW UP FOR AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION (IME) IS A “POLICY ISSUE” WARRANTING DENIAL OF NO-FAULT BENEFITS AND THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES TO PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL LEFT A PROFFER SESSION MIDWAY THROUGH THE PROCEEDINGS; DURING THE PROFFER SESSION DEFENDANT MADE AN INCRIMINATORY STATEMENT WHICH WAS USED TO IMPEACH HIS CREDIBILITY AT TRIAL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE-ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
ONE DEFENDANT PROVED HE DID NOT RESIDE AT THE ADDRESS WHERE SERVICE OF PROCESS WAS MADE; AND PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE THE PROCESS SERVER EXERCISED “DUE DILIGENCE” IN ATTEMPTING TO SERVE THE OTHER DEFENDANT BEFORE RESORTING TO NAIL AND MAIL; DEFAULT JUDGMENT VACATED (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

Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment Re: Fall from Non-Defective Ladder After... Service by “Nailing” On the Day Before the Last Possible Day and...