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
Zoning Board Applied an Incorrect Definition of a Term in a Zoning Ordinance—Court Has the Power to Impose Its Own Interpretation as a Matter of Law
A POOR-QUALITY VIDEO SHOWED THE SHOOTING AND THE SHOOTER GETTING INTO THE DRIVER’S SEAT OF THE CAR WHICH WAS STOPPED AFTER A CHASE; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE ANY OF THE OCCUPANTS GOT OUT OF THE DRIVER SIDE OF THE CAR; TWO OF THE OCCUPANTS HAD CLOTHES SIMILAR TO THOSE WORN BY THE SHOOTER; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION WAS SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE; BUT DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION WAS REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT),
DEFENSE OPENED THE DOOR TO ALLOW EVIDENCE OF OTHERWISE INADMISSIBLE TESTIMONIAL HEARSAY STATEMENTS MADE TO A POLICE INVESTIGATOR
MOTHER ENTITLED TO HEARING ON HER PRO SE PETITION TO MODIFY A CUSTODY AWARD; FATHER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN COMPLETE CONTROL OVER MOTHER’S VISITATION; ATTORNEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPOINTED FOR THE CHILDREN.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION’S (DEC’S) DETERMINATIONS ON THE USE OF SNOWMOBILES IN NEWLY ADDED PORTIONS OF THE ADIRONDACK PARK UPHELD, TWO CHALLENGES NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW (THIRD DEPT).
Attorney Penalized for Making a Baseless Request for a Change of Venue
Antenuptial Agreement Was a Valid Contract Which Controlled Interpretation of Trust Documents
THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD HAD PREVIOUSLY HELD THAT, IN A HEARING-LOSS CASE, THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE AUDIOGRAM (HEARING TEST) WITH THE INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION RECORD PRECLUDES CONSIDERATION OF THE EXPERT EVIDENCE; THE AUDIOGRAM WAS NOT INCLUDED HERE AND THE BOARD DID NOT EXPLAIN ITS DEPARTURE FROM PRECEDENT (BY CREDITING THE EXPERT EVIDENCE); DETERMINATION REVERSED (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...