You are here: / / LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED,...

LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LIGHTING BAR FELL ON PLAINTIFF WHEN HE WAS DISMANTLING AN EXHIBITION BOOTH.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) claims should not have been granted.  Plaintiff was dismantling an exhibition booth when a lighting bar fell on him:

Since [plaintiff’s] specific task at the moment the accident occurred was ancillary to and part of the larger demolition job of dismantling the booths, in which he was to participate, plaintiff was engaged in an activity within the purview of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) … .

… The lighting bar was an object that required securing to prevent it from becoming dislodged or falling during the work … . Further, in view of the weight of the lighting bar, we cannot conclude as a matter of law that the distance it fell was de minimis … . Nor did defendants demonstrate that any securing device would have defeated the task of removing the lighting bar .. .

12 NYCRR 23-1.8(c)(1), which mandates approved safety hats for persons “required to work or pass within any area where there is a danger of being struck by falling objects or materials,” is sufficiently concrete to give rise to Labor Law § 241(6) liability … . Rutkowski v New York Convention Ctr. Dev. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 00555, 1st Dept 1-26-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LIGHTING BAR FELL ON PLAINTIFF WHEN HE WAS DISMANTLING AN EXHIBITION BOOTH)/DEMOLITION (LABOR LAW, LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LIGHTING BAR FELL ON PLAINTIFF WHEN HE WAS DISMANTLING AN EXHIBITION BOOTH)/HARD HATS (LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LIGHTING BAR FELL ON PLAINTIFF WHEN HE WAS DISMANTLING AN EXHIBITION BOOTH)

You might also like
Third-Party Claims Against Other Law Firms Which Advised Plaintiff.
Although the Elevator Maintenance Company May Have Been Negligent, Under “Espinal,” the Company Did Not Owe a Duty of Care to the Plaintiff—There Was No Evidence the Maintenance Company “Launched an Instrument of Harm,” the Only Available Theory of Liability (Re: Plaintiff) Which Could Have Arisen from the Maintenance Contract
Criteria for Liability for Acts of Independent Contractor and for Negligent Hiring of an Independent Contractor Explained (Criteria Not Met Here)
THE FIRST DEPARTMENT, AGREEING WITH THE SECOND, DETERMINED THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS) DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE A NONRESPONDENT MOTHER WHO HAD BEEN ABUSED BY RESPONDENT FATHER IN THE CHILD’S PRESENCE; THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE A NONRESPONDENT MOTHER IS ONLY TRIGGERED WHEN THE COURT ORDERS THE CHILD REMOVED FROM THE HOME, NOT THE CASE HERE (FIRST DEPT).
COMPLIANCE WITH NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW 1304 NOT DEMONSTRATED, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Lost Profits Not Recoverable—Too Speculative and Not Contemplated in the Agreement
ARBITRATOR’S DETERMINATION THAT THE ACKNOWLEDGED SEXUAL HARASSMENT DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A DISCHARGEABLE OFFENSE VIOLATED PUBLIC POLICY AND WAS IRRATIONAL (FIRST DEPT).
ACTION BROUGHT BY EUROPEAN PLAINTIFFS CONCERNING THE OWNERSHIP OF A PAINTING ILLEGALLY CONFISCATED BY THE NAZIS AND SOLD IN NEW YORK BY CHRISTIE’S PROPERLY DISMISSED ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS GROUNDS (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FAMILY COURT’S REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE THIRD DEPT’S REVERSAL... ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT, ENTERED BY THE CLERK AT THE DIRECTION OF THE APPELLATE...