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
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS BORROWED A LIFT FROM DEFENDANT MIS, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED USING THE LIFT, THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST MIS WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS INAPPLICABLE, BUT THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST MIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Raised a Triable Issue of Fact Under the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur—Plaintiff Alleged a Bone Was Fractured During Surgery
THE PROOF THAT PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL AT A BUS STOP, WHERE THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING THE AREA SAFE, AS OPPOSED TO THE SIDEWALK ABUTTING DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY, WHERE DEFENDANT IS RESPONSIBLE, WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
OMISSION OF RETURN DATE FROM AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, WHICH DID NOT RESULT IN PREJUDICE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISREGARDED AS A TECHNICAL DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).
STAY IMPOSED BY A SOUTH CAROLINA COURT AS PART OF THE LIQUIDATION OF A SOUTH CAROLINA MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURANCE CARRIER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO FULL FAITH AND CREDIT IN A NEW YORK ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS INSURED BY THE INSOLVENT CARRIER (SECOND DEPT).
EXECUTOR’S DISCLOSURE OF THE INFORMAL ACCOUNTING OF THE ESTATE TO BENEFICIARIES WAS SUFFICIENT, BENEFICIARY’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE A RELEASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Nothing in the Documentation Submitted to the Lender Raised Any Questions About the Applicant’s Authority, as the Sole Member, to Enter the Mortgage on Behalf of Defendant Limited Liability Company—Therefore the Affirmative Defense Alleging the Mortgage Was Invalid Because there Were Undisclosed Members of the Limited Liability Company Was Properly Dismissed
ALTHOUGH THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS IMPROPERLY BROUGHT AS AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND PETITION, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; RATHER IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONVERTED BY DEEMING THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE A SUMMONS AND THE PETITION A COMPLAINT; MATTER REMITTED (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 © 2026 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.