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
Six-Year Delay in Raising Attorney’s Conflict of Interest Waived the Objection​
THE ORIGINAL CHILD SUPPORT ORDER WAS ISSUED IN VIRGINIA, WHERE FATHER RESIDES; FATHER’S NEW YORK CHILD SUPPORT PETITION WAS ACTUALLY SEEKING MODIFICATION OF THE VIRGINIA ORDER; NEW YORK THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER FATHER’S PETITION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED.
Evidence of Gang Membership Properly Admitted to Show Motive for Assault
THE CALCULATIONS IN THE REFEREE’S REPORT WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS; THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT). ​
ANTISUBROGATION RULE BARRED PLAINTIFF INSURER’S CAUSES OF ACTION, THE UNDERLYING ACTION ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW VIOLATIONS STEMMING FROM A CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO INCLUDE YEAR IN THE DATES OF THE SIGNATURES REQUIRED INVALIDATION OF THE DESIGNATING PETITION.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
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,...