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
AFTER TWICE ADMITTING OWNERSHIP OF THE AREA OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THEIR ANSWER TO DENY OWNERSHIP AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN (FIRST DEPT).
CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF RUSTED CONDITION OF STAIRCASE WHICH COLLAPSED DEMONSTRATED WITH PHOTOGRAPHS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE MAY APPLY IN THIS ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION CASE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS PRESENTED SUFFICIENT PROOF TO WARRANT A FRYE HEARING ON WHETHER A TUMOR MAY HAVE BEEN DETECTABLE BEFORE BIRTH.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BRICKS WHICH STRUCK PLAINTIFF WERE DELIBERATELY DROPPED, WHICH WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH NOTICE PROVISION OF NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE DID NOT TOLL STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RE: AN ACTION SEEKING TO RECOVER THE COST OF BUILDING MODIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY THE CODE AFTER DEFENDANTS’ CONSTRUCTION OF A TALLER NEIGHBORING BUILDING.
RESPONDENT CANDIDATE FOR THE NYS ASSEMBLY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE MAINTAINED A RESIDENCE IN NEW YORK FOR FIVE YEARS; PETITIONERS’ APPLICATION TO INVALIDATE RESPONDENT’S CANDIDACY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Mother Demonstrated Relocation to Mississippi Was In Best Interest of Child, Job and Family Support Available

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

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