You are here: / / LADDER WAS NOT DEFECTIVE, FALL NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240.

LADDER WAS NOT DEFECTIVE, FALL NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240.

The First Department determined plaintiff's fall from a ladder did not support a Labor Law 240 cause of action. Plaintiff's pant leg caught on an unmarked rebar as he descended from the third rung. The accident was not caused by a defective ladder and was not attributable to an extraordinary elevation-related risk:

… [D]ismissal of the Labor Law § 240 claim was proper, as there is no dispute that the ladder was free from defects, and the record shows that plaintiff's fall was not attributable to the kind of extraordinary elevation-related risk that the statute was designed to prevent. Rather, plaintiff's injuries “were the result of the usual and ordinary dangers at a construction site” … . Almodovar v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2016 NY Slip Op 03075, 1st Dept 4-21-16


You might also like
State’s Decrease in Its Contribution to Judges’ Health Care Insurance Violated the Compensation Clause of the NYS Constitution
PASSING REFERENCES TO DEFENDANTS’ INSURANCE COVERAGE IN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE DID NOT WARRANT SETTING ASIDE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT (FIRST DEPT).
​ THE ALLEGATIONS DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT INSURANCE AGENT SUCH THAT PLAINTIFF COULD RELY ON THE AGENT TO CORRECT ANY MISREPRESENTATIONS IN THE INSURANCE APPLICATION (FIRST DEPT).
TESTIMONY OF A DEFENSE WITNESS WHO IDENTIFIED PLAINTIFF AS THE PERSON FLEEING THE SCENE OF A CRIME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED IN THIS FALSE ARREST AND MALICIOUS PROSECUTION ACTION; THE JURY WAS NOT INSTRUCTED ON THE CRITERIA FOR A TERRY STOP; PLAINTIFF’S JUDGMENT VACATED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN REPAIR WORK WHEN A PERMANENT LADDER IN AN ELEVATOR SHAFT ALLEGEDLY VIBRATED CAUSING HIM TO FALL; EVEN IF A HARNESS WERE AVAILABLE, COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A DEFENSE TO A LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A “SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP” BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT INSURANCE BROKERS SUCH THAT PLAINTIFFS COULD REASONABLY RELY ON THE BROKERS TO RENEW A POLICY (FIRST DEPT).
​ THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ADDING ALLEGATIONS WHICH INCREASE A DEFENDANT’S EXPOSURE TO LIABILITY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT). ​
WHERE THE CRITERIA ARE MET SENTENCING AS A PREDICATE FELON IS MANDATORY, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SO SENTENCED BUT WAS NOT, PEOPLE’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE ILLEGAL SENTENCE PROPERLY BROUGHT AND GRANTED.

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

ORDINANCE OR LAW ENDORSEMENT DID NOT REQUIRE INSURER TO PAY FOR REMEDIATION... DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED WATER WAS NOT DIVERTED ONTO PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY...