You are here: / / OPENINGS THROUGH WHICH A WORKER’S BODY COULD NOT COMPLETELY FALL...

OPENINGS THROUGH WHICH A WORKER’S BODY COULD NOT COMPLETELY FALL NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 241(6).

Plaintiff was injured when his leg slipped into a 12-inch square opening in a rebar grid. The Second Department determined an opening through which a worker's body could not fall through was not an elevation hazard (Labor Law 240(1)) and did not violate a regulation prohibiting “hazardous openings” (Labor Law 241(6):

… [T]he openings of the grid, which were not of a dimension that would have permitted the plaintiff's body to completely fall through and land on the floor below, did not present an elevation-related hazard to which the protective devises enumerated in Labor Law § 240(1) are designed to apply … . …

This Court has repeatedly held that 12 NYCRR 23-1.7, which concerns “hazardous openings,” does not apply to openings that are too small for a worker to completely fall through … . Vitale v Astoria Energy II, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 02986, 2nd Dept 4-20-16


You might also like
Plaintiff Barred from Recovery Against Special Employer by Exclusivity Provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED HAWAII WAS THE MORE APPROPRIATE FORUM FOR THIS CUSTODY DISPUTE, HAWAII NEVER HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND WAS UNAWARE OF THE FATHER’S NEW YORK CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS UNTIL AFTER THE HAWAII PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED, THE HAWAII RULINGS MUST BE VACATED, ONLY THEN CAN FAMILY COURT MAKE A VALID ANALYSIS OF THE APPROPRIATE FORUM (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE PRECLUDED DEFENDANT FROM INTRODUCING CERTAIN EVIDENCE AT TRIAL BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS, HOWEVER, SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES BECAUSE PLAINTIFF IS THE LESS-MONIED SPOUSE (SECOND DEPT).
DOG OWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Provide Pre-Restraint Notice to a Judgment Debtor as Required by the Exempt Income Protection Act Violates Due Process
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE REOPENED THE NEGLECT HEARING WHEN MOTHER ARRIVED AT COURT SHORTLY AFTER SUMMATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
Late Notice of Claim Denied—Infancy Alone Not Sufficient Reason to Allow Late Notice

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

PARTY WHO SIGNS A DOCUMENT WITHOUT READING IT IS CONCLUSIVELY BOUND BY ITS... DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN SLIP AND FALL AREA LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED,...