You are here: / / INJURY NOT GRAVITY-RELATED, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY ...

INJURY NOT GRAVITY-RELATED, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly dismissed. Plaintiff was struck by a pipe which was being carried down a ladder by another worker:

According to the deposition testimony of Haylon Dennis … as Dennis was descending from a ladder, he swung a pipe that he was holding and hit the injured plaintiff, whom Dennis did not realize was standing near him. …

… [Defendants] established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the injury was not the direct consequence of the application of the force of gravity to an object or person … . In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Palomeque v Capital Improvement Servs., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 08538, 2nd Dept 12-21-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (INJURY NOT GRAVITY-RELATED, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED)/GRAVITY-RELATED (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, INJURY NOT GRAVITY-RELATED, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED)

/by
You might also like
In Court Stipulation Was Valid Postnuptial Agreement; DRL 236(B)(3) Did Not Apply
Even Records Demonstrated to Be Material and Necessary to the Prosecution or Defense of an Action Are Not Discoverable If Privileged and the Privilege Is Not Waived
BASEMENT OFFICE DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS OF RESIDENTIAL EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY FOR A DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK.
Marijuana Convictions, Standing Alone, Are Not a Sufficient Basis for Assessment of Points Against Defendant for Drug Abuse
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF TURNED RIGHT INTO DEFENDANT DRIVER’S PATH AT AN INTERSECTION, DEFENDANT DRIVER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM FAULT AND DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FOLIAGE OBSTRUCTING A STOP SIGN DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE ACCIDENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, THE DEFENDANT DID NOT PROVE PLAINTIFF DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THEIR ADVERSE POSSESSION AND TRESPASS CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A DEFENDANT’S MISTAKEN BELIEF HE OR SHE HAD A RIGHT TO ENTER DOES NOT DEFEAT LIABILITY FOR TRESPASS (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS PREVAILED IN A SUIT BY PLAINTFF COOPERATIVE PURSUANT TO A PROPRIETARY LEASE; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY LAW 234 EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED IN A COUNTERCLAIM (SECOND 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

RIDING IN A PICKUP TRUCK IS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, FALLING OFF THE TAILGATE... PLAINTIFF NEED NOT BE ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK TO BRING A LABOR LAW 200...