You are here: / / PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW SOURCE OF FALLING WOOD WHICH STRUCK HIM, THEREFORE...

PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW SOURCE OF FALLING WOOD WHICH STRUCK HIM, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE, AS MATTER OF LAW, A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240(1).

The Second Department determined plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on a Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly denied. Plaintiff was struck by a falling piece of wood, but did not know what caused the wood to fall:

To prevail on a motion for summary judgment in a section 240(1) “falling object” case, the plaintiff must demonstrate that at the time the object fell, it either was being hoisted or secured, or required securing for the purposes of the undertaking … . In addition, the plaintiff “must show that the object fell . . . because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute” … .

… The evidence submitted by the plaintiff was insufficient to establish that the wood fell because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device. The plaintiff's mere belief that the wood that struck him was a part of the hoist mechanism is insufficient to establish that it was a component of the safety device itself … . Moreover, under the circumstances, including that the plaintiff did not see where the wood fell from, the plaintiff did not establish, prima facie, that his injuries were proximately caused by the absence or inadequacy of a safety device or other violation of the statute … . Pazmino v 41-50 78th St. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 04032, 2nd Dept 5-25-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW SOURCE OF FALLING WOOD WHICH STRUCK HIM, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE, AS MATTER OF LAW, A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240(1))/FALLING OBJECTS (LABOR LAW, PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW SOURCE OF FALLING WOOD WHICH STRUCK HIM, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE, AS MATTER OF LAW, A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240(1))

You might also like
LAW OFFICE FAILURE WAS AN INADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A SCHEDULED COURT CONFERENCE IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH INSURANCE LAW 3420(d)(2) REQUIRING TIMELY NOTICE OF THE DISCLAIMER OF INSURANCE COVERAGE DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT (AS OPPOSED TO A PERSONAL INJURY) ACTION, THE DISCLAIMERS WERE UNTIMELY UNDER COMMON LAW WAIVER AND ESTOPPEL PRINCIPLES (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS IN THIS ICY-STEP SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS WHO WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ICE AND SNOW REMOVAL; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT THE LEASE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE WAS SUPPORTED BY A SWORN DENIAL OF SERVICE AND SPECIFIC FACTS WHICH REBUTTED THE PRESUMPTION OF PROPER SERVICE, MATTER SENT BACK FOR A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN IMPUTING TOO MUCH INCOME TO AND AWARDING TOO LITTLE MAINTENANCE TO PLAINTIFF WIFE; IN ADDITION DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED 50% OF THE VALUE OF PLAINTIFF’S BUSINESS AND THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED A POSTTRIAL VALUATION OF THE BUSINESS (SECOND DEPT).
MANUFACTURER OF A TUBE SLIDE AND THE PROPERTY OWNER WHERE THE TUBE SLIDE WAS LOCATED ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; INFANT PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN CLIMBING ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE TUBE SLIDE.
DEFENDANT MADE A LEFT TURN IN THE PATH OF PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY AND DISMISSING THE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CANCELLATION AND DISCHARGE OF A MORTGAGE AND VACATION OF A NOTICE OF PENDENCY MUST BE SOUGHT BY AN ACTION OR A COUNTERCLAIM PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1501, NOT, AS HERE, BY A CROSS-MOTION; THE ISSUE WAS PROPERLY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF’S ACT OF CLIMBING A FENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED THE SOLE... PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN REAR-END COLLISION CASE.