You are here: / / FALLING PLYWOOD NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), PLYWOOD WAS NOT...

FALLING PLYWOOD NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), PLYWOOD WAS NOT BEING HOISTED AND WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE SECURED, LABOR LAW 246 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action, based upon injury caused by a falling piece of plywood, was properly dismissed because the plywood was not being hoisted and did not need to be secured. Plaintiff’s 241 (6) cause of action was properly allowed to proceed:

… [T]he Supreme Court correctly determined that the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging violations of Labor Law § 240(1) by submitting the deposition transcript of [defendant’s] superintendent, which demonstrated that the plywood that fell was not being hoisted or secured and did not require securing for the purposes of the undertaking at the time it fell … . * * *

As to the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action, which was predicated upon a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(a)(1), the Supreme Court … correctly determined that … the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law based upon the plaintiff’s supervisor’s affidavit, in which he averred that the area where the plaintiff was working was not normally exposed to falling material or objects (see 12 NYCRR 23-1.7[a][1]…). In opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact by submitting the plaintiff’s supervisor’s deposition testimony, in which he testified, in contradiction to his affidavit, that it was known that objects were “always” falling at the plaintiff’s worksite, and that objects fell “sometimes” and “once in a while” … . Millette v Tishman Constr. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 08053, 2nd Dept 11-30-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FALLING PLYWOOD NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), NOT BEING HOISTED OR REQUIRED TO BE SECURED, LABOR LAW 246 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED)

You might also like
ALTHOUGH IT WAS ERROR TO DENY THE DEFENSE REQUEST FOR A RODRIGUEZ HEARING BASED UPON THE PROSECUTOR’S ASSERTION THE COMPLAINANT AND THE DEFENDANT KNEW EACH OTHER, THE TRIAL TESTIMONY DEMONSTRATED THE COMPLAINANT AND DEFENDANT IN FACT KNEW EACH OTHER; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE COURT OF APPEALS REQUIRES THAT THE IDENTIFICATION ISSUE BE RESOLVED BEFORE TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT HAD BEEN RELEASED FOR 12 YEARS WITHOUT REOFFENDING AT THE TIME OF THE SORA HEARING; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE TO LEVEL ONE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA AND DID NOT HAVE A PRACTICAL ABILITY TO OBJECT, THEREFORE AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT FOR APPEAL APPLIES, MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
THE DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY, WITHOUT EVIDENCE FROM THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT WHO MADE THE DRUG PURCHASES, WAS NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH WARRANT; MATTER REMITTED FOR A DARDEN HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
Delay In Retaining Expert Did Not Warrant Preclusion of Expert’s Testimony
HARMLESS ERROR TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CRIMES, HARMLESS ERROR TO PROHIBIT CROSS-EXAMINATION OF ARRESTING OFFICER ABOUT A SETTLED FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS SUIT, STATEMENTS MADE BY DEFENDANT NOT ADMISSIBLE AS PRIOR CONSISTENT STATEMENTS OR AS EVIDENCE OF STATE OF MIND, EVIDENTIARY ARGUMENT NOT RAISED BELOW OR ON APPEAL CANNOT BE CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).
SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FRAUD APPLIES TO A CONVERSION ACTION, ALTHOUGH THE FRAUD BEGAN IN 1998 PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE BECOME AWARE OF IT UNTIL 2013, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION IS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
CRITERIA FOR ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE OF UNCHARGED CRIMES AND BAD ACTS EXPLAINED, EVIDENCE OF PRIOR DOMESTIC ABUSE PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THIS CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROSECUTION (SECOND 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

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS ON A LADDER WHEN INJURED, THE INJURY WAS NOT CAUSED BY... BUYER NOT ENTITLED TO RETURN OF DEPOSIT, BUYER DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE MORTGAGE...