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
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS IN A PRISON AS A VISITOR WHEN THERE WAS A CANINE ALERT TO DRUGS ON HER PERSON, THE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE SUCH THAT ANY QUESTIONING SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRECEDED BY THE MIRANDA WARNINGS; A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD NOT HAVE FELT FREE TO LEAVE; BECAUSE THEY WERE CLOSE IN TIME, BOTH HER ORAL STATEMENT AND HER POST-MIRANDA WRITTEN STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT). ​
THERE IS NO INDICATION MOTHER WAS INFORMED OF HER COUNSEL’S WITHDRAWAL BEFORE THE PERMANENCY HEARING WAS HELD IN MOTHER’S AND COUNSEL’S ABSENCE; NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED NO APPEAL LIES FROM A DEFAULT AND MOTHER’S ONLY REMEDY IS A MOTION TO VACATE (THIRD DEPT).
Sufficient Evidence Supported Finding that Sole Shareholder, Who Did Not Oversee the Day to Day Operations of a Corporation, Was a “Responsible Person” Who Could Be Held Personally Liable for the Failure to Pay Corporate Sales and Use Taxes
THE MURDER SECOND DEGREE COUNTS MUST BE DISMISSED AS INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF MURDER FIRST DEGREE (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).
THE DELAY IN PRODUCING THE DEFENDANT FOR ARRAIGNMENT AFTER THE PEOPLE BECAME AWARE HE WAS IN CUSTODY WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PEOPLE (A “CONTRADICTORY HOLDING” BY THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT WAS NOTED); DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO DISMISS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
Antenuptial Agreement Was a Valid Contract Which Controlled Interpretation of Trust Documents
DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN TOXIC TORT (MOLD EXPOSURE) ACTION ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS.

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...