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 PETITION SEEKING TO TERMINATE FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS, WITH THE GOAL OF FREEING THE CHILD FOR ADOPTION, AND THE CONCURRENT PERMANENCY PLAN TO RETURN THE CHILD TO THE CUSTODY OF MOTHER, HAD CONFLICTING END GOALS; THE PETITION TO TERMINATE FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS SHOULD THEREFORE HAVE BEEN DIMSISSED (THIRD DEPT).
Failure to Advise Respondent of His Right to Counsel at a Temporary Removal Hearing Not Condoned—Reversal Not Required Because No Evidence from the Temporary Removal Hearing Was Elicited in the Subsequent Neglect Proceedings
DEATH RECORDS KEPT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ARE EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE TO THE PETITIONER, A NON-PROFIT WHICH PROMOTES GENEALOGICAL RESEARCH (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE “SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES” WHICH MAY HAVE JUSTIFIED AWARDING CUSTODY OF THE CHILD TO THE GRANDPARENTS APPLIED ONLY TO FATHER AND NOT AT ALL TO MOTHER; FOR THAT REASON THE GRANDPARENTS’ PETITION FOR CUSTODY OF THE CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
BECAUSE THE GAS WELL TO WHICH PLAINTIFFS OBJECTED MAY NEVER BE CONSTRUCTED, THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION DID NOT PRESENT A JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY.
PROSECUTOR’S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE A RACE-NEUTRAL REASON FOR STRIKING A JUROR REQUIRED REVERSAL.
DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF SECOND DEGREE MURDER (DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE) AND FIRST DEGREE MANSLAUGHTER (RECKLESS) FOR THE DEATH OF A SEVERELY ABUSED CHILD; THE EXTENSIVE DISCUSSIONS OF THE “DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE” ELEMENT BY THE MAJORITY AND DISSENT ILLUSTRATE THE DIFFICULTY OF PROVING BOTH “DEPRAVITY” AND “INDIFFERENCE” (THIRD DEPT).
AFTER SKIING ALL DAY AND RETURNING THE EQUIPMENT, CLAIMANT SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE AND SNOW IN A PARKING LOT; THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY; THE COURT NOTED THAT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, HERE AN INCIDENT REPORT, MAY BE CONSIDERED ON A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IF IT DUPLICATES NON-HEARSAY (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 © 2025 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...