You are here: / / PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CLAIM EVEN...

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CLAIM EVEN WHEN NOT FREE FROM NEGLIGENCE.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) claim, noting that comparative negligence on the part of the plaintiff is not a defense. Plaintiff alleged he was operating a forklift lifting bricks to be placed on a scaffold when the forklift pitched forward and catapulted him over the front of the machine:

 

We agree with the motion court that plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 claim. Plaintiff was using the prime mover to hoist a load; if the prime mover pitched forward due to the force of gravity, it failed to offer adequate protection and Labor Law § 240(1) applies … . Similarly, if the accident occurred because either the prime mover or scaffold could not support the weight of the brick load, the accident also resulted from the application of the force of gravity to the load during the hoisting operation, and Labor Law § 240(1) applies … . * * *

“[T]he Labor Law does not require a plaintiff to have acted in a manner that is completely free from negligence” … . On the contrary, that plaintiff may have negligently lowered the pallet, as the dissent posits, makes no possible difference to the outcome here, as “[n]egligence, if any, of the injured worker is of no consequence” … . Rather, the law is clear that “if a statutory violation is a proximate cause of an injury, the plaintiff cannot be solely to blame for it” … . Here, the failure to provide a proper hoisting device to protect plaintiff violated Labor Law § 240(1). Somereve v Plaza Constr. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 01236, 1st Dept 2-18-16

 

LABOR LAW (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CLAIM EVEN WHEN NOT FREE FROM NEGLIGENCE)

You might also like
INCONSISTENCIES IN TWO FINAL RENT-ADJUSTMENT ORDERS ALLOWED RECONSIDERATION OF THE NATURE OF THE MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS [MCI’S] DESCRIBED IN THE ORDERS.
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY APPLIED THE “PIERCE THE CORPORATE VEIL CRITERIA” AND ASSESSED DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT PARENT CORPORATION; THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON AN A-FRAME LADDER WHEN AN ELECTRICAL EXPLOSION CAUSED HIM AND THE LADDER TO FALL TO THE GROUND; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE; BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE THAT A SAFETY DEVICE WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE FALL, HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SHOW LADDER WHICH FELL WAS DEFECTIVE TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.
HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION APPLIED TO THE CHURCH IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD, FAILURE TO PLEAD THE EXEMPTION AS A DEFENSE DID NOT PRECLUDE RAISING IT IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, ARCHDIOCESE WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER, NO LABOR LAW 200 LIABILITY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER SUPERVISED AND CONTROLLED THE MEANS AND MANNER OF WORK (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER AND MANAGER WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE UNDER THE STORM-IN-PROGRESS DOCTRINE, 18 INCHES OF SNOW HAD FALLEN LESS THAN TWO HOURS BEFORE; PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON WATER ON STAIRS IN THE LOBBY; PLAINTIFF’S OWN TESTIMONY DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).
REMOVING A CRATE FROM A FLATBED TRUCK WAS AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1).
PLAINTIFF, AN EDITORIAL DIRECTOR AT GAWKER, DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE THE DAILY BEAST REPORTERS WHO WROTE AN ARTICLE ABOUT GAWKER VIOLATED THE “GROSS IRRESPONSIBILITY STANDARD” IN MAKING STATEMENTS ABOUT PLAINTIFF; THE DEFAMATION COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED (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

1987 NEGATIVE DECLARATION DID NOT EXPIRE AND REMAINS VALID WITH RESPECT TO A... LANDLORD’S FAILURE TO PROCURE TOWN RENTAL PERMIT IS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE...