You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HIS FAILURE...

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HIS FAILURE TO USE A LADDER WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS.

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion papers in the Labor Law 240(1) action raised a triable issue of fact whether his failure to use an available ladder was the sole proximate cause of his fall from a wall. Plaintiff’s motion must therefore be denied without any need to consider the opposing papers:

Liability under section 240 (1) does not attach when the safety devices that [the] plaintiff alleges were absent were readily available at the work site, albeit not in the immediate vicinity of the accident, and [the] plaintiff knew he [or she] was expected to use them but for no good reason chose not to do so, causing an accident” … . Under those circumstances, the “plaintiff’s own negligence is the sole proximate cause of his [or her] injury” … .

Where the plaintiff’s submissions in support of the motion raise a triable issue of fact whether his or her own actions were the sole proximate cause of the injury, the plaintiff has failed to make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability because “if the plaintiff is solely to blame for the injury, it necessarily means that there has been no statutory violation” … . In this case, plaintiff’s submissions raised triable issues of fact whether plaintiff knew that he was expected to use a readily available ladder at the work site to perform his task, but for no good reason chose not to do so, and whether he would not have been injured had he not made that choice … . Scruton v Acro-Fab Ltd., 2016 NY Slip Op 07428, 4th Dept 11-10-16

 

LABOR LAW (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HIS FAILURE TO USE A LADDER WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS)/SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE (LABOR LAW 240(1), PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HIS FAILURE TO USE A LADDER WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS)/LADDERS (LABOR LAW 240(1), PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HIS FAILURE TO USE A LADDER WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS)

You might also like
Regulation Properly Promulgated—Analytical Criteria Described in Some Depth
DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO PROSECUTOR’S EXAGGERATING THE NATURE AND IMPORTANCE OF DNA EVIDENCE.
COUNTY COURT PROPERLY GRANTED THE PEOPLE’S REQUEST TO PREVENT REMOVAL OF DEFENDANT’S CASE TO FAMILY COURT UNDER THE “RAISE THE AGE ACT;” THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
WHERE A NOTE OF ISSUE HAS BEEN FILED BUT IS SUBSEQUENTLY VACATED, THE ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3404 (FOURTH DEPT).
DEC CONTRACTORS HAD THE RIGHT TO ENTER PROPERTY TO TEST FOR GASOLINE CONTAMINATION WITHOUT SIGNING THE PROPERTY OWNER’S ACCESS AGREEMENT, BECAUSE ONLY A CHANGE IN FORM WAS REQUIRED, THE DEC’S ACTION WAS CONVERTED TO A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION 4TH DEPT.
Possession of Modest Amount of Drugs Is Not Sufficient to Make Out a Prima Facie Case of an Intent to Sell
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS WERE JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE IN THIS AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT CASE; THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
SENTENCE AFTER TRIAL, WHICH WAS SIX TIMES LONGER THAN THE SENTENCE OFFERED FOR A PLEA, DEEMED UNDULY HARSH AND SEVERE (FOURTH 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

COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO APPLY THE “MADE WHOLE” RULE IN THIS SUBROGATION... ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED BY A CHALLENGED ZONING ORDINANCE ARE NOT NECESSARY...