You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INJURED ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE...
,

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INJURED ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION WERE VIABLE HOWEVER, USE OF ALIAS WAS NOT A FRAUD UPON THE COURT.

The Second Department determined the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should have been dismissed because plaintiff was not injured on the construction site but rather on a storage site a few blocks away. Plaintiff was injured when he stepped in a hole. However the Labor Law 200 cause of action was viable. The Second Department also determined the plaintiff’s use of an alias to bring suit was not a fraud upon the court (plaintiff is an undocumented immigrant) but held that the complaint should be amended to reflect his actual name:

Turning to the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action, Royal and Vista established, prima facie, that at the time of the accident the plaintiff was not working in a construction area within the meaning of Labor Law § 241(6) … . They submitted evidence which established that the lot where the accident occurred was located several blocks away from the construction area, and was used to store materials. There was no construction taking place at the lot, and the plaintiff’s accident occurred as he was taking materials to a truck so they could be transported to the construction site. In opposition to this prima facie showing by Royal and Vista, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. …

With respect to the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action, this accident arose not from the manner in which the work was performed, but rather from an allegedly dangerous condition at the work site. Under such circumstances, liability may be imposed if the property owner created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it, and failed to remedy the condition within a reasonable amount of time … . Similarly, a general contractor may be held liable in common-law negligence and under Labor Law § 200 if it had control over the work site and actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition … . Bessa v Anflo Indus., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 02013, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INJURED ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION WERE VIABLE HOWEVER)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INJURED ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION WERE VIABLE HOWEVER, USE OF ALIAS WAS NOT A FRAUD UPON THE COURT)/ALIAS (BRINGING SUIT USING AN ALIAS WAS NOT A FRAUD ON THE COURT)/FRAUD (FRAUD UPON THE COURT, BRINGING SUIT USING AN ALIAS WAS NOT A FRAUD ON THE COURT)

You might also like
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SEARCHED THE RECORD TO AWARD SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, HOWEVER, FAILURE TO TIMELY NOTIFY UMBRELLA INSURER OF THE CLAIM WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FAMILIARITY WITH THE APPLICABLE STANDARD OF CARE, WAS SPECULATIVE AND CONCLUSORY AND DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ASSERTIONS MADE BY DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS; THE DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
A MOTION TO MODIFY THE CUSTODY PROVISIONS IN A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, WHERE THERE ARE CONTESTED FACTS, SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED WITHOUT A FULL HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENTS SET FORTH IN A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MODIFIED IN THE ABSENCE OF A HEARING AND FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE UNTESTED BY THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).
ADEQUATE SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF AFTER SURGERY RESULTING IN MEMORY LOSS WAS PART OF PLAINTIFF’S TREATMENT, THEREFORE A CAUSE OF ACTION RESULTING FROM PLAINTIFF’S LEAVING THE HOSPITAL SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT, ALTHOUGH PARTIALLY GRANTED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN ITS ENTIRETY (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE IT WAS A LICENSED DEBT COLLECTION AGENCY PURSUANT TO THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE; THE BANK DID NOT ATTACH THE BUSINESS RECORDS NECESSARY TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).
GENERALLY A HOMEOWNER WHO DOES NOT DIRECT THE WORK ON THE HOME CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR A LADDER-FALL PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240(1); BUT THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION DOES NOT APPLY WHEN THE WORK IS RELATED TO A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE; HERE THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE PROPERTY WAS TO BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES (SECOND DEPT).
HEARSAY STATEMENTS BY THE ONLY WITNESS TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT AS A PERPETRATOR INDICATED THE WITNESS WAS NOT IN FACT ABLE TO IDENTIFY ANY OF THE PERPETRATORS; THE INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BECAUSE THEY WENT TO A CORE ISSUE IN THE CASE IMPLICATING THE RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND 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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OBJECT THAT FELL WAS THE TYPE OF OBJECT WHICH SHOULD... TREE CUTTING NOT COVERED, PILE OF DEBRIS NOT A STRUCTURE, OUT OF POSSESSION...