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)

/by
You might also like
PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT INTERPRETED TO WAIVE TEMPORARY MAINTENANCE DESPITE ABSENCE OF THE PRECISE TERM.
DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE WHEN DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD HIM HE “MOST LIKELY” WOULD BE DEPORTED WHEN DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY; APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS PLEA; ONE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED A NEW THEORY OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, TRIVIALITY IS NOT A QUESTION OF DIMENSIONS ALONE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
POLICE OFFICER’S EXPECTATION THAT DEFENDANT WOULD BE ARRESTED DID NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS IN CUSTODY, MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
THE EXAMINATION UNDER OATH (EUO) WAS SCHEDULED BEFORE THE INSURER RECEIVED A CLAIM FORM; THEREFORE THE INSURER DID NOT HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 TO BE ENTITLED TO A DEFAULT DECLARATORY JUDGMENT; THE UNDERLYING TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN STAGED AND CLAIMANT FAILED TO APPEAR AT SCHEDULED EOU’S (FIRST DEPT).
15 MONTH DELAY IN ARTICLE 10 TRIAL DID NOT DEPRIVE RESPONDENT OF DUE PROCESS.
CHARACTER IN A MOVIE BASED UPON A SHORT STORY WAS IDENTIFIABLE AS PLAINTIFF, THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION AGAINST THE MAKERS OF THE MOVIE (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2022 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...