You are here: / / ELEVATOR NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY...

ELEVATOR NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The First Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) cause of action, which was based upon injury incurred in an elevator, was properly dismissed. Under the circumstances (not explained in the decision) the elevator could not be considered a safety device. Plaintiff’s Labor Law 241(6) cause of action, alleging debris as a slipping hazard, should not have been dismissed:

Dismissal was properly granted with respect to plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action in that plaintiff alleged that he was injured while riding in one of the building’s elevators. In this case, the passenger elevator was not a safety device for protecting a construction worker from a risk posed by elevation as contemplated by Labor Law § 240(1) … .

The court erred, however, in dismissing that portion of plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claim to the extent the claim was predicated on violations of Industrial Code … . While there were no facts alleged to support a claim that plaintiff was injured as the result of a slipping hazard, plaintiff’s complaint, as supplemented by his affidavit in opposition to defendant’s motion, sufficiently alleged that debris was one of the causes of his fall … . Smith v Extell W. 45th St. LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 07089, 1st Dept 10-27-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (ELEVATOR NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED)/ELEVATORS (LABOR LAW, ELEVATOR NOT A SAFETY DEVICE, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON EVIDENCE FIRST PRESENTED IN REPLY; PLAINTIFF WAS COLLATERALY ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY AND COGNITIVE DISORDER BY THE RULING IN HIS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION CASE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL DOWN AN OPEN, UNGUARDED MANHOLE AS HE ATTEMPTED TO STEP OVER IT; PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PROTECTIVE RAILING AROUND THE MANHOLE (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S INABILITY TO PINPOINT THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL FROM A LADDER DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THERE WAS CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSE.
LADDER WAS NOT DEFECTIVE, FALL NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240.
Homeowner’s Exemption Applied/Fact that Three Unrelated Families Lived in the Home Did Not Negate the Finding that the Home Was a Single Family Dwelling
NYC LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION’S DECISION THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE MECHANISM OF AND ACCESS TO A LANDMARK NINETEENTH CENTURY CLOCKTOWER WHICH HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY A PRIVATE PARTY WAS BASED UPON AN ERROR OF LAW AND WAS IRRATIONAL (FIRST DEPT).
LAW OFFICE FAILURE DEEMED A REASONABLE EXCUSE, DEFAULT JUDGMENT VACATED.
PASSING REFERENCES TO DEFENDANTS’ INSURANCE COVERAGE IN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE DID NOT WARRANT SETTING ASIDE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE PROPERLY INCLUDED THE COSTS OF SUB-ALLOCATED PROGRAMS... QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF...