You are here: / / PLAINTIFF INJURED BY A PORTION OF A ROOF WHICH FELL ON HIM UNEXPECTEDLY...

PLAINTIFF INJURED BY A PORTION OF A ROOF WHICH FELL ON HIM UNEXPECTEDLY WHEN ANOTHER PORTION OF THE ROOF WAS BEING DEMOLISHED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, PROPERTY MANAGER COULD BE LIABLE AS AGENT OF OWNER.

The First Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly denied. Plaintiff was injured when a portion of a roof fell on him unexpectedly when another portion of the roof was being demolished. The court further determined the property manager could be held liable as the agent of the owner:

Since that part of the roof above plaintiff was not the intended target of demolition at the time of the collapse, Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action … .

Furthermore, defendant Gibraltar Management Co., Inc. was the manager of the property, which handled all activities related to its management and contracted with RA Lynch Excavating for the demolition of the building. Accordingly, it may be held liable as an agent of the owner pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6) … . Ragubir v Gibraltar Mgt. Co., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 00265, 1st Dept 1-17-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF INJURED WHEN A PORTION OF A ROOF FELL ON HIM UNEXPECTEDLY WHEN ANOTHER PORTION OF THE ROOF WAS BEING DEMOLISHED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED)/DEMOLITION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW,  (PLAINTIFF INJURED WHEN A PORTION OF A ROOF FELL ON HIM UNEXPECTEDLY WHEN ANOTHER PORTION OF THE ROOF WAS BEING DEMOLISHED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED)/AGENT (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PROPERTY MANAGER COULD BE LIABLE AS AGENT OF OWNER)/PROPERTY MANAGER (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PROPERTY MANAGE COULD BE LIABLE AS AGENT OF OWNER)

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT NEW YORK COMPANY IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AN ISRAELI COMPANY, THE TWO ENTITIES OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY SUCH THAT NEW YORK COULD NOT EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER THE ISRAELI COMPANY, A QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE RE DEFAMATORY REMARKS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY DEFENDANT DOES NOT INSULATE THE DEFENDANT FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF A CONTRACTUAL NON-DISPARAGEMENT CLAUSE (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM WORTHLESS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY PLED THAT GROSS NEGLIGENCE PRECLUDED ENFORCEMENT OF THE ‘SOLE REMEDIES’ CLAUSES AND THE DEMANDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE PROOF OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AT THE FORTHCOMING CUSTODY TRIAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO INCIDENTS OCCURRING AFTER THE HAGUE CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS IN CYPRUS (FIRST DEPT). ​
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF HAS STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AND WHETHER THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS SERVED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT)
MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY BICYCLE-RIDING IN PUBLIC PARK, DESPITE REGULATIONS PROHIBITING BICYCLE-RIDING; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT HIRED TO CARE FOR THE CHILD WHO STRUCK INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CHILD’S FATHER (RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR) OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR; QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT CARE-GIVER WAS NEGLIGENT IN SUPERVISING THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SOCIAL WORKER WAS MENACED BY A TENANT IN CITY HOUSING WIELDING A KNIFE AND SUED THE CITY; THE CITY WAS ACTING IN A GOVERNMENTAL CAPACITY; THERE WAS NO SPECIAL DUTY OWED TO PLAINTIFF BY THE CITY; THE ATTACK WAS NOT FORESEEABLE; SECURITY WAS ADEQUATE; THE COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE ACCIDENT WAS RELATED TO MATERIAL ON THE FLOOR WHICH CAUSED THE WHEELS OF A CART PLAINTIFF WAS PUSHING TO GET STUCK; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE FLOOR WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED (FIRST DEPT).
MISNOMER DID NOT PREJUDICE THE CITY; CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED AND PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MOTION TO AMEND THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST 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

PLANK USED TO CROSS GAP IN ROOF COLLAPSED, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT... NO DUTY OWED BY CAB COMPANY TO GENERAL PUBLIC, PLAINTIFF INJURED BY THE CAB...