You are here: / / BUILDING OWNER LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) FOR INJURY CAUSED BY FALLING ...

BUILDING OWNER LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) FOR INJURY CAUSED BY FALLING ELEVATOR.

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff, McCrea, was repairing an elevator when it fell on him. The court explained the relevant law, including the criteria for demonstrating an injured worker's actions were the sole proximate cause of the injury:

The evidence here establishes that at the time of the accident, McCrea was engaged in “repair” work because the elevator's safety shoes were not operating properly, and the condition was an isolated event, unrelated to normal wear and tear … . In addition, the elevator was a “falling object” within the meaning of the Labor Law, even though it was not actually being hoisted or secured at the time of the accident, because it required securing for the purpose of McCrea's repair work … .

As plaintiff was engaged in activity protected by Labor Law § 240(1) at the time of the incident, Arnlie, as owner of the building, is subject to absolute liability for injuries which resulted from its failure to provide plaintiff with proper safety devices …, without regard to the comparative fault of plaintiff … . Where the worker is the sole proximate cause of the injury, however, the premises owner will not be liable … . “[T]o raise a triable issue of fact as to whether a plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of an accident, the defendant must produce evidence that adequate safety devices were available, that the plaintiff knew that they were available and was expected to use them, and that the plaintiff unreasonably chose not to do so, causing the injury sustained” … .

Here, there is no indication that plaintiff refused or misused available safety equipment. McCrea v Arnlie Realty Co. LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 04330, 1st Dept 6-7-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (BUILDING OWNER LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) FOR INJURY CAUSED BY FALLING ELEVATOR)/ELEVATORS (BUILDING OWNER LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) FOR INJURY CAUSED BY FALLING ELEVATOR)

You might also like
THE FRAUDULENT-CONVEYANCE CAUSES OF ACTION INVOLVED CONNECTICUT PROPERTIES AND WERE TIME-BARRED IN CONNECTICUT; NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE RENDERED THE ACTIONS TIME-BARRED IN NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE FAILURE OF SHRINK WRAP USED TO SECURE BOXES, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED MOVING THE LOOSE BOXES (FIRST DEPT).
THE ALLEGATIONS THAT DEFENDANT’ GRABBED PLAINTIFF’S SHOULDERS AND TOUCHED PLAINTIFF’S CHEEKS DID NOT STATE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR TORTIOUS “FORCIBLE TOUCHING” OR FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; COMPLAINT DISMISSED OVER AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
POLICE OFFICER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS PULMONARY HYPERTENSION WAS RELATED TO HIS SERVICE AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9-11.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S REMOVAL OF A TANK EXPOSING AN OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM IMPOSING CONTRACT-BASED LIABILITY, FACT THAT OPENING WAS OBVIOUS AND KNOWN TO PLAINTIFF SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AND DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (FIRST DEPT).
New York City Was Unable to Demonstrate Amendments to the Adult Use Zoning Regulations Were Necessary to Reduce the Negative Effects of Such Businesses on the Surrounding Areas–Therefore the Amendments Constituted an Unjustified Restriction on Speech
IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE RELEASE WAS INDUCED BY FRAUD; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE DECISION TO CALL OR NOT CALL A WITNESS IS ENTIRELY THE PROVINCE OF DEFENSE COUNSEL, WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANT AGREES.

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

FEDERAL CONVICTION FOR FAILING TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER WAS NOT A QUALIFYING... TOWN DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THEORIES OF LIABILITY RAISED BY THE PLEADINGS IN THIS...