You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STACKED SCAFFOLDING, WHICH WAS ON THE SAME LEVEL...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STACKED SCAFFOLDING, WHICH WAS ON THE SAME LEVEL AS PLAINTIFF, CONSTITUTED A “PHYSICALLY SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL,” SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should not have been granted. Plaintiff was severely injured when a row of stacked scaffolding frames fell forward like “dominos.” Whether Labor 240(1) applies depends on whether the scaffolding, which was on the same level as plaintiff, presented a risk related to a significant elevation differential:

… [W]e are unable to glean from the present record whether plaintiff’s injury arose from the requisite “physically significant elevation differential” … . In determining whether an elevation differential is physically significant or de minimis, we must consider not only the height differential itself, but also “the weight of the [falling] object and the amount of force it was capable of generating, even over the course of a relatively short descent” … . Critically absent from the record is any indication as to plaintiff’s height or any other evidence shedding light on the height differential between plaintiff and the stacked frames at the time they fell. Further, issues of fact remain with regard to such other relevant factors as the number of scaffolds stacked in the pile that collapsed, the weight of each scaffold and the manner in which the scaffold(s) struck plaintiff. Given these unresolved factual questions, summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) is not appropriate … . Wright v Ellsworth Partners, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 06927, 3rd Dept 10-20-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STACKED SCAFFOLDING, WHICH WAS ON THE SAME LEVEL AS PLAINTIFF, CONSTITUTED A “PHYSICALLY SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL,” SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)/ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL (LABOR LAW 240(1), QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STACKED SCAFFOLDING, WHICH WAS ON THE SAME LEVEL AS PLAINTIFF, CONSTITUTED A “PHYSICALLY SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL,” SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED)

You might also like
THE CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS MADE WITH APARTMENT OWNERS AND SERVICE PROVIDERS BY THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS SERVICES (DHS) DID NOT CREATE “ILLUSORY TENANCIES” SUCH THAT THE PREVIOUSLY HOMELESS TENANTS WERE ENTITLED TO VACANCY LEASES WHEN THE DHS CONTRACTS WERE TERMINATED (SECOND DEPT).
Residential Health Care Facility’s Medicaid Reimbursement Disallowed with Respect to Certain Operating Costs
DESPITE EVIDENCE THAT BOTH DRIVERS WERE FAMILIAR WITH THE INTERSECTION WHERE THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PROPER SIGNAGE COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE ACCIDENT; THE TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE WAS NOT CONCLUSORY OR SPECULATIVE AND RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS THE OWNER OF THE SCOOTER, WHETHER DEFENDANT KNEW DECEDENT WAS NOT COMPETENT TO OPERATE THE SCOOTER, AND WHETHER DEFENDANT GAVE DECEDENT PERMISSION TO TEST DRIVE THE SCOOTER; THE NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE IN FAILING TO REQUEST A FRYE HEARING CONCERNING A COMPUTER PROGRAM USED TO INTERPRET MIXED DNA SAMPLES, APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE AND MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
Leased Right-of-Way Was an Easement Appurtenant Which Can Only Be Extinguished by Abandonment, Conveyance, Condemnation or Adverse Possession
DEFENDANTS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT SUPPORTING A “FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT” DEFENSE TO THE ACTION BASED UPON AN EXECUTED PROMISSORY NOTE (THIRD 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

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED MOTHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY MODIFICATION... LIEN LAW DID NOT REQUIRE A BOND FOR A $170,000,000 PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT...