You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WHO FELL FROM A-FRAME LADDER AFTER AN ELECTRICAL SHOCK NOT ENTITLED...

PLAINTIFF WHO FELL FROM A-FRAME LADDER AFTER AN ELECTRICAL SHOCK NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The Court of Appeals, reversing (modifying) the Appellate Division, determined plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Defendant fell from an A-frame ladder after receiving an electrical shock:

Plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1). While using an A-frame ladder, plaintiff fell after receiving an electrical shock. Questions of fact exist as to whether the ladder failed to provide proper protection, and whether plaintiff should have been provided with additional safety devices … . Nazario v 222 Broadway, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 07823, CtApp 11-21-16

LABOR LAW (PLAINTIFF WHO FELL FROM A-FRAME LADDER AFTER AN ELECTRICAL SHOCK NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION)/LADDERS (LABOR LAW, PLAINTIFF WHO FELL FROM A-FRAME LADDER AFTER AN ELECTRICAL SHOCK NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION)

You might also like
Enhanced Sentencing for Second Child Sexual Assault Felony Offenders Is Required by Penal Law 70.07; Language in Criminal Procedure Law 400.19 Can Not Be Interpreted to Mean the People Can Decide Not to Seek the Enhanced Sentence
DEFENDANT’S HAND UNDER HIS HOODIE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE ELEMENT OF ROBBERY FIRST WHICH REQUIRES THE DISPLAY OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE A FIREARM.
THE AMOUNT OF GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-A COMPENSATION TO WHICH RETIRED PERMANENTLY DISABLED YONKERS FIREFIGHTERS ARE ENTITLED UNTIL RETIREMENT AGE IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION UNDER THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA) (CT APP). ​
STRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF JURY NOTES AND THE CREATION OF A COMPLETE RECORD OF HOW THE NOTES WERE HANDLED REAFFIRMED (CT APP).
Judge’s Speaking to a Juror During Deliberations, With Defense Counsel’s Permission, Outside the Presence of the Defendant and Counsel, Was a Mode of Proceedings Error Requiring Reversal
ACTIONS TAKEN BY A NEW YORK ATTORNEY WHO IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE JUDICIARY LAW 470, WHICH REQUIRES AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK, ARE NOT A NULLITY (CT APP).
Reversing Its Prior Decision in this Case, the Court of Appeals Determined the “Servidone” Rule Is to Be Followed in New York/An Insurer Which Has Breached Its Duty to Defend the Insured May Rely On Policy Exclusions to Escape Its Duty to Indemnify the Insured
THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF DEFENDANT INVESTMENT BANK’S EMPLOYEE WHO ALLEGEDLY DEFRAUDED PLAINTIFFS OF $25 MILLION TO COVER THE EMPLOYEE’S LOSSES; THE ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFFS COULD NOT SUE THE BANK BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT BANK CUSTOMERS WAS REJECTED (CT APP).

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE PROPERLY DETERMINED ENTERGY’S APPLICATION... IN A CITY WHICH DOES NOT PROVIDE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FOR ITS...