You are here: / / LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD SURVIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE...

LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD SURVIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE ITEMS PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER WERE NOT INTEGRAL TO THE WORK BEING DONE BY PLAINTIFF AT THE TIME HE FELL.

The First Department determined Labor Law 241(6) causes action based on the allegation plaintiff tripped on discarded concrete and rebar should survive summary judgment because plaintiff demonstrated the concrete and rebar were not integral to his work:

Plaintiffs established that the excess wet concrete discarded on the plywood on which plaintiff slipped was not integral to the work being performed by plaintiff at the accident site … . Plaintiff did not work with concrete and concrete was not a part of his responsibilities in constructing the tables and forms used to hold the rebar and other ironwork in place. Similarly, the rebar on which plaintiff tripped was not integral to the work he was performing, and defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2) was correctly denied ,,, . Plaintiff presented evidence that he did not work with rebar and that rebar was not integral to any work being done on the day of the accident. Pereira v New School, 2017 NY Slip Op 01627, 1st Dept 3-2-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD SURVIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE ITEMS PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER WERE NOT INTEGRAL TO THE WORK BEING DONE BY PLAINTIFF AT THE TIME HE FELL)

You might also like
THE EVIDENCE FATHER NEGLECTED THE DAUGHTER (EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT) WAS SUFFICIENT; BUT THE EVIDENCE FATHER DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED THE SON WAS NOT (FIRST DEPT).
Son Entitled to Remain in Deceased Mother’s Apartment​
PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON AN A-FRAME LADDER WHEN AN ELECTRICAL EXPLOSION CAUSED HIM AND THE LADDER TO FALL TO THE GROUND; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE; BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE THAT A SAFETY DEVICE WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE FALL, HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO PAY CONDOMINIUM COMMON CHARGES WAS A PROPER BASIS FOR EJECTION FROM THE CONDOMINIUM.
UNDER THE FACTS, PLAINTIFF CAN ASSERT A CLAIM FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT AGAINST DEFENDANT, EVEN THOUGH BOTH ARE SIGNATORIES TO THE MULTILATERAL CONTRACTS; THE PARTIES HAVE DIFFERENT RIGHTS AND DUTIES UNDER THE CONTRACTS (FIRST DEPT).
THE CONSENT-SEARCH PROBATION CONDITION WAS NOT WARRANTED IN THIS DWI CASE; THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS SELLING TICKETS TO A SPORTING EVENT OUTSIDE THE ARENA, THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT KNEW THE TICKETS WERE FORGED WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; DEFENDANT’S FLIGHT WHEN HE SAW THE POLICE WAS EQUIVOCAL (FIRST DEPT).
PRO SE PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS ORDER OF PROTECTION 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

ALTHOUGH NONE OF THE THREE CHILDREN TESTIFIED IN THIS NEGLECT CASE, THE STATEMENTS... SIX MONTHS WITHIN WHICH TO RECOMMENCE AN ACTION IN STATE COURT AFTER DISMISSAL...