You are here: / / PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO CPLR...
,

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO CPLR 4401 PROPERLY GRANTED ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, JURY HAD FOUND THE LABOR LAW 240(1) VIOLATION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT.

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs’ motion for a judgment as a matter of law (CPLR 4401) on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff fell from the top of a boiler when a co-worker accidentally caused hot water and steam to escape from a valve. The jury found that the Labor Law 240(1) violation was not the proximate cause of the accident:

Here, the evidence adduced at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, demonstrated that the defendant failed to provide an adequate safety device to the plaintiff, and that this failure proximately caused the plaintiff’s fall. The fact that the plaintiff’s coworker bumped into the valves, which caused hot water and steam to pour onto the plaintiff and precipitated his fall, was not of such an extraordinary nature or so attenuated from the defendant’s conduct that responsibility for the injury should not reasonably be attributed to it … . Moreover, in light of the statutory violation, even if the plaintiff were negligent in some respect, his comparative negligence would not bar liability under Labor Law § 240(1) … . Raia v Berkeley Coop. Towers Section II Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 01243, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO CPLR 4401 PROPERLY GRANTED ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, JURY HAD FOUND THE LABOR LAW 240(1) VIOLATION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT)/PROXIMATE CAUSE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO CPLR 4401 PROPERLY GRANTED ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, JURY HAD FOUND THE LABOR LAW 240(1) VIOLATION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT)/JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW (CPLR 4401) (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO CPLR 4401 PROPERLY GRANTED ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, JURY HAD FOUND THE LABOR LAW 240(1) VIOLATION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT)

You might also like
14-YEAR-OLD PLAYING CATCH ON A SCHOOL ATHLETIC FIELD ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY FROM A TWO TO FIVE INCH DEPRESSION IN THE FIELD (SECOND DEPT).
CAPSULE CAMERA SWALLOWED TO VISUALIZE A PATIENT’S INTESTINES IS NOT A FOREIGN OBJECT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD IS THEREFORE NOT TOLLED UNTIL DISCOVERY OF THE CAPSULE, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIME-BARRED.
PETITIONER, PURSUANT TO LIEN LAW 38, HAS A RIGHT TO AN ITEMIZED STATEMENT BREAKING DOWN THE AMOUNT OF A MECHANIC’S LIEN; THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE RESPONDENT HERE WAS DEEMED INSUFFICIENT TO SATISFY LIEN LAW 38 (SECOND DEPT).
ONCE AGAIN, BECAUSE THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS WERE NOT ATTACHED TO THE AFFIDAVITS, THE STATEMENTS IN THE AFFIDAVITS WERE HEARSAY; PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE OR DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT). ​
ORDERS COMPELLING ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS OR PRECLUDING QUESTIONING ARE NOT APPEALABLE AS OF RIGHT; A REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL AFTER THE APPEAL IS PERFECTED IS GENERALLY DENIED; THE HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SUBJECT MEDICAL RECORDS WERE PRIVILEGED AS PART OF A QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW (SECOND DEPT). ​
NO APPEAL LIES FROM DICTA (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Firefighter’s Injury Was Proximately Caused by Driver’s Negligent Operation of His Car Under the “Danger Invites Injury” Doctrine—Firefighter Was Injured Removing Injured Driver from His Car After an Accident
IT WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF SIBLINGS TO REMAIN TOGETHER, CUSTODY OF BOTH CHILDREN SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO FATHER IN THIS MODIFICATION PROCEEDING.

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

PLAINTIFF FELL WHILE DOING ROUTINE REPAIR ON AN AIR CONDITIONER, NOT COVERED... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD NOTICE OF CRACKED CONCRETE SLAB WHICH...