You are here: / / WORKER STRUCK BY DEBRIS WHICH FELL THROUGH A GAP IN PROTECTIVE NETTING...

WORKER STRUCK BY DEBRIS WHICH FELL THROUGH A GAP IN PROTECTIVE NETTING ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Workers were using jackhammers to chip away concrete on an elevated structure. Netting had been installed to catch falling pieces of concrete. Plaintiff was struck and severely injured by a four-foot piece of concrete which fell through a gap in the netting. The netting was deemed to be an inadequate safety device:

The plaintiffs’ submissions demonstrated that the injured plaintiff suffered harm that “flow[ed] directly from the application of the force of gravity” to the piece of concrete that struck him … , and that given the nature and purpose of the work that was being performed at the time of his injury, the falling debris presented a significant risk of injury such that the … defendants were obligated under Labor Law § 240(1) to use appropriate safety devices to safeguard the injured plaintiff from the harm it posed … . The plaintiffs’ submissions also demonstrated that the injured plaintiff’s injury was “the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against [the] risk” of harm posed by the falling debris … . Indeed, the plaintiffs established that the vertical netting that was installed around the controlled access zone to protect workers from the falling debris had pulled loose from the plywood barricade, creating an opening through which the concrete that struck the injured plaintiff traveled. Under these circumstances, the vertical netting constituted a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … , and the plaintiffs demonstrated that it was not “so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection” (Labor Law § 240[1]). Sarata v Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 09667, 2nd Dept 12-30-15

LABOR LAW (WORKER STRUCK BY FALLING DEBRIS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION)

You might also like
No Justification for Vacation of Arbitration Award—Strict Standard Applies
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE DEFENDANT SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT NEED TO ADDRESS ANY ESPINAL EXCEPTION IN ITS ANSWER BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE AN EXCEPTION APPLIED; PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT AN ESPINAL EXCEPTION APPLIED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Partial Performance of an Oral Modification Will Allow Enforcement of the Oral Modification Even Where the Written Agreement Prohibits Oral Modification
SCHOOL DISTRICT NOT LIABLE FOR A SEXUAL ASSAULT BY A STUDENT BEFORE CLASSES STARTED, THE ATTACK WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS A SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENT, HER EDUCATION PLAN DID NOT PROVIDE FOR AN AIDE TO ESCORT HER FROM THE BUS TO THE SCHOOL OR BETWEEN CLASSES (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE, DEFENDANT PROPERTY MANAGER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION OR THAT IT LACKED CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; IN ADDITION PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
A LETTER INDICATING THE DEBT WOULD BE ACCELERATED IF THE ARREARS WERE NOT PAID DID NOT SERVE TO ACCELERATE THE DEBT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BANK FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
THE PARTIES MARRIED IN 1974, STARTED DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS IN 1991, DISCONTINUED THE DIVORCE AND BEGAN LIVING TOGETHER AGAIN IN 1998, CONTINUED LIVING TOGETHER UNTIL THE INSTANT DIVORCE IN 2015; SUPREME COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP ENDED IN 1991; MATTER REMITTED FOR RECALCULATION OF THE MARITAL PROPERTY AND COUNSEL FEES (SECOND DEPT).
TESTIMONY OF SOLE EYEWITNESS DEEMED INCREDIBLE AND UNRELIABLE, CONVICTION REVERSED UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS (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

INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING THAT SAFETY DEVICES BE KEPT SOUND AND OPERABLE... DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE CEMENT PATCH WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT AS A MATTER...