You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S LEANING TO THE SIDE OF A NON-DEFECTIVE LADDER WAS THE...

PLAINTIFF’S LEANING TO THE SIDE OF A NON-DEFECTIVE LADDER WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INJURY.

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly granted to defendants in a Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff was using an A-frame ladder which was not defective. Plaintiff was injured when he leaned to the side of the ladder and the ladder tipped and the plaintiff fell. It was the act of reaching to the side, not a defective ladder, which was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury:

 

“Labor Law § 240(1) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners, lessees that control the work performed, and general contractors to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites” … . “To recover on a cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must demonstrate that there was a violation of the statute, and that the violation was a proximate cause of the accident” … . “Where there is no statutory violation, or where the plaintiff is the sole proximate cause of his or her own injuries, there can be no recovery under Labor Law § 240(1)” … .

Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) insofar as asserted against each of them. Their submissions demonstrated, prima facie, that the injured plaintiff improperly positioned and misused the ladder, which was the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . Scofield v Avante Contr. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 00493, 2nd Dept 1-27-16

 

LABOR LAW (LEANING TO THE SIDE OF A NON-DEFECTIVE LADDER WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INJURY)/PROXIMATE CAUSE (LABOR LAW, PLAINTIFF’S MISPOSITION OF A NON-DEFECTIVE LADDER WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INJURY)

You might also like
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED OTHER SAFETY DEVICES (LADDERS, SCAFFOLDS) WERE AVAILABLE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS ACTIONS WERE NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES (SECOND DEPT).
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Mandated New Trial—Difference Between Federal and State Ineffectiveness Criteria Explained
THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE AND THE DEAD MAN’S STATUTE PRECLUDED PLAINTIFF FROM PROVING HIS CASE, WHICH WAS BASED UPON A CONTRACT AND DECEDENT’S STATEMENTS ABOUT THE CONTRACT; ALTHOUGH THE DEAD MAN’S STATUTE USUALLY WILL NOT PRECLUDE EVIDENCE AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE, HERE IT IS CLEAR PLAINTIFF WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE HIS CASE AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
THE CLASS HAD STANDING TO SEEK DECLARATORY, INJUNCTIVE AND MONETARY RELIEF BASED UPON ALLEGATIONS THE COUNTY REAL PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM WAS IRRATIONAL, DISCRIMINATORY AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESULTING IN A SHIFT OF THE TAX BURDEN FROM THE WEALTHIER PREDOMINANTLY WHITE COMMUNITIES TO THE LOWER INCOME PREDOMINANTLY NONWHITE COMMUNITIES (SECOND DEPT). ​
IF DEFENDANT DRIVER, COCUZZO, WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF DEFENDANT RANDALL AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, RANDALL WOULD BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE; NOT SO IF COCUZZO WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR; THE “EMPLOYER VS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR” ISSUE MUST BE RESOLVED BY THE TRIER OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO EXCUSE OFFERED (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN IF PLAINTIFF’S STAIRWAY FALL RESULTED FROM A MISSTEP, EVIDENCE THAT PLAINTIFF WAS “LOOKING FOR A HANDRAIL” RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE INVOLVING THE DEFENDANT NYC TRANSIT AUTHORITY’S BUS, THE AUTHORITY GAINED TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE POTENTIAL CLAIM WHEN IT INVESTIGATED THE ACCIDENT AND WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABSENCE OF A REASONABLE EXCUSE (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

FRAUD CAUSES OF ACTION DID NOT MEET PLEADING REQUIREMENTS. UNDER THE CITY CHARTER, THE MAYOR DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ABOLISH A CIVIL...