You are here: / / FIXING A LEAKY ROOF NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW...

FIXING A LEAKY ROOF NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS.

The First Department determined defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly denied. Plaintiff climbed up a permanent ladder to fix a roof leak. The ladder was wet with rain, shaky and too close to the wall. Plaintiff fell when he attempted to come back down the ladder from the roof:

… [D]efendant [is not] entitled to dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim. Plaintiff was engaged in repairing the roof, an activity to which Labor Law § 240(1) applies, and not merely in routine maintenance … . Moreover, the permanently affixed ladder that provided the sole access to plaintiff's elevated work site was a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … . In view of plaintiff's testimony that the ladder shook and was wet and was too close to the wall to allow room for his feet on the rungs, defendant failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that plaintiff was provided with proper protection. Kolenovic v 56th Realty, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 04005, 1st Dept 5-24-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FIXING A LEAKY ROOF NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, PLAINTIFF'S LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED MOTION TO DISMISS)

You might also like
BUILDING OWNER LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) FOR INJURY CAUSED BY FALLING ELEVATOR.
A PHOTOGRAPH OF DEFENDANT WITH A HANDGUN TAKEN SIX WEEKS BEFORE THE SHOOTING WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE AS TENDING TO SHOW HIS IDENTITY AS THE SHOOTER (FIRST DEPT).
HEARSAY STATEMENTS OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM WERE NOT CORROBORATED, NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, HEAVY ROLL OF WIRE FELL BECAUSE OF ABSENCE OF A SAFETY DEVICE (FIRST DEPT).
AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT DETERMINE A SUPPRESSION MOTION BASED ON TRIAL EVIDENCE; THE TRIAL EVIDENCE REVEALED THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT MAY HAVE BEEN UNLAWFUL; BASED UPON THE LIMITED INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO DEFENDANT WHEN THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS MADE, THE ALLEGATION THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO ENTER WAS ENOUGH TO WARRANT A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING; MATTER REMITTED (FIRST DEPT).
SOLICITATIONS FOR NEWSPAPER AND MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTIONS WERE MATERIALLY MISLEADING IN VIOLATION OF GENERAL BUSINESS 349, THE SOLICITATIONS IMPLIED THEY WERE SENT DIRECTLY FROM THE PUBLISHER (FIRST DEPT).
Deed Was Not a “Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure;” Deed Therefore Did Not Transfer Title; Mortgagor’s Interest Can Be Extinguished Only by Foreclosure
TERMS OF CONTRACT WERE NOT ABSOLUTE AND UNCONDITIONAL, MOTION TO DIMSISS BREACH AND REPUDIATION OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN 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

REVERSIBLE ERROR TO RECONSIDER THE VERDICT. REMOVING A CRATE FROM A FLATBED TRUCK WAS AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK COVERED...