You are here: / / PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION AGAINST ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED...
,

PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION AGAINST ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, LABOR LAW 240(1) INAPPLICABLE TO ELEVATOR ACCIDENT.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question fact whether a defective elevator part caused the elevator to fall when plaintiff, who was repairing the elevator, was in the elevator car. The court further determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) was properly dismissed because securing the elevator to prevent a fall would have made repairing the elevator impossible:

… [P]aintiff raised issues of fact whether the shim was defective and a cause of the accident and whether there was a failure to warn. Plaintiff’s expert opined that the cracked shoe caused the elevator car to get wedged in the hoistway in the manner that plaintiff described, and … [an] engineer involved in the design of the elevator acknowledged that the car could come out of the rails and get hung up if a guide shoe cracked while the elevator was descending. The engineer also testified that, after a previous instance in which a similar guide shoe by the same manufacturer had cracked because bolts had been over-tightened, [the manufacturer] had redesigned the shim in 2003 to prevent the guide shoe from cracking because of over-tightening of the bolts, but had made no effort to notify customers whose elevators had the older shims.

The elevator was not a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Plaintiff’s reliance on McCrea v Arnlie Realty Co. LLC (140 AD3d 427 [1st Dept 2016]) is unavailing. In that case, the elevator on which the plaintiff was engaged in repair work fell onto the plaintiff because it had not been secured. In this case, plaintiff was inside the elevator, riding up and down to test it. To the extent plaintiff may have been engaged in “repair” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1), the statute does not apply, because any securing device would have defeated the purpose of his work by precluding him from riding the elevator … . Versace v 1540 Broadway L.P., 2017 NY Slip Op 01813, 1st Dept 3-15-17

 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION AGAINST ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, LABOR LAW 240(1) INAPPLICABLE TO ELEVATOR ACCIDENT)/ELEVATORS (PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION AGAINST ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, LABOR LAW 240(1) INAPPLICABLE TO ELEVATOR ACCIDENT)/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION AGAINST ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, LABOR LAW 240(1) INAPPLICABLE TO ELEVATOR ACCIDENT)

You might also like
Presumption Tenants-In-Common Share Equally Can Be Rebutted
IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, PLAINTIFF STEPPED ON A SMALL WOODEN “PATCH” COVERING A HOLE IN THE FLOOR AND HIS LEG WENT THROUGH THE HOLE; DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THE ACCIDENT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE WAS REJECTED; THE PRECISE NATURE OF THE ACCIDENT NEED NOT BE FORESEEN; IT IS ENOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS SUBJECTED TO AN ELEVATION-RELATION RISK AND NO SAFETY EQUIPMENT WAS PROVIDED (FIRST DEPT).
THE “NO ACTION” PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT PRECLUDED PLAINTIFFS FROM BRINGING A JUDICIAL BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION; THE AVAILABLE CONTRACTUAL REMEDIES WERE DEEMED EXCLUSIVE (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE BUILDING OWNER AND MANAGER WERE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS UNDER A POLICY ISSUED TO THE CONTRACTOR HIRED TO RENOVATE CONCRETE WALKWAYS; THE OWNER AND MANAGER ARE ENTITLED TO COVERAGE FOR A SLIP AND FALL ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY PAINTING THE WALKWAYS ALL THE SAME COLOR AND THEREBY DISGUISING A CHANGE IN ELEVATION (FIRST DEPT).
FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE APPEAL WAIVER WAS INVALID, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; THERE ARE UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS (RAISED BY A DEFENSE INVESTIGATION SUBMITTED WITH THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS) ABOUT WHETHER THE DESCRIPTON OF THE SEARCHED PREMISES IN THE WARRANT WAS ACCURATE, REQUIRING A HEARING; MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT
PLAINTIFF STEPPED IN A HOLE WHEN DELIVERING TILES TO THE WORK SITE; HE WAS PERFORMING WORK “NECESSARY AND INCIDENTAL” TO THE INSTALLATION OF THE TILES AND THEREFORE WAS PROTECTED BY LABOR LAW 240(1); A SUBCONTRACTOR WILL NOT BE LIABLE UNDER THE LABOR LAW AS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR UNLESS THE SUBCONTRACTOR HAS AUTHORITY OVER THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED (FIRST DEPT).
COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS’ FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND COUNSEL DURING THE SALE OF PLAINTIFFS’ BUSINESS TO DEFENDANT ARE PRIVILEGED (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

DEFENDANT HEAVY METAL CLUB DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF... IN THIS PROSECUTION ALLEGING DEFENDANT CELL PHONE COMPANY’S UNDERPAYMENT...