You are here: / / REMOVING A CRATE FROM A FLATBED TRUCK WAS AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK COVERED...

REMOVING A CRATE FROM A FLATBED TRUCK WAS AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1).

The First Department determined plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff was attempting to maneuver a 1500-pound crate to a sling for removal from a flatbed truck when it fell over on him:

… [ P]reparing a six-foot-tall crate weighing at least 1,500 pounds for hoisting posed an elevation-related risk for plaintiff within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … , and the crate was “an object that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking” … .

Further, there is unrebutted evidence that various devices, including wooden blocks for bracing, would have stabilized the crate while it was being maneuvered into a position to have slings placed on it for hoisting by the crane. Grant v Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, 2016 NY Slip Op 04003, 1st Dept 5-24-16

LABOR-CONSTRUCTION LAW (REMOVING A CRATE FROM A FLATBED TRUCK WAS AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1))

You might also like
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE STEPS WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WERE LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE STREET ADDRESS OF THE PRIVATE RESIDENCE TO BE SEARCHED SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED THE PROPERTY NOTWITHSTANDING THAT PUBLIC RECORDS INDICATED THREE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AT THAT ADDRESS; THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS VALID (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO A RISK-ASSESSMENT THEORY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME AT THE HEARING; MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT).
TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN NOT LETTING THE POSSESSION-OF-A-BB-GUN COUNT GO TO THE JURY BECAUSE THE COUNT COULD CONFUSE THE JURY AND LEAD TO A COMPROMISE VERDICT, DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF A 9 MM HANDGUN. 
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A VALID NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT INSURANCE BROKER FOR FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE EXCESS CARRIER OF A CLAIM AGAINST PLAINTIFF; IT WAS ALLEGED THAT PLAINTIFF ROUTINELY NOTIFIED DEFENDANT BROKER OF ANY CLAIMS AND DEFENDANT BROKER ROUTINELY NOTIFIED THE AFFECTED CARRIERS, GIVING RISE TO A DUTY TO DO SO (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER BASED ON CONTRACTUAL SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES, AND QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SUBCONTRACTOR IS LIABLE AS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER (FIRST DEPT).
FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD WHICH DID NOT HAVE GUARD RAILS ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
THE PROOF AT TRIAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF INHALED SUFFICIENT LEVELS OF ASBESTOS WHEN USING DEFENDANT’S TALCUM POWDER TO HAVE CAUSED HER MESOTHELIOMA; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

FIXING A LEAKY ROOF NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1)... CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF EXISTENCE OF PUDDLE CREATED A CREDIBILITY ISSUE IN THIS...