You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OBJECT THAT FELL WAS THE TYPE OF OBJECT WHICH...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OBJECT THAT FELL WAS THE TYPE OF OBJECT WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED WITH A SAFETY DEVICE ENUMERATED IN THE LABOR LAW STATUTE.

The Second Department determined summary judgment should not have been granted to plaintiff on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff fell off a scissors lift when what he alleged was a “beam” came down from above him. The object which came down was also described as a “duct.” The Second Department found there was a question of fact whether the object which came down should have been secured by a safety device enumerated in the Labor Law statute:

The evidence submitted by the plaintiff was insufficient to establish that the beam in question fell due to the absence or inadequacy of an enumerated safety device. Specifically, there was a question of fact as to the nature of the “beam” at issue. The plaintiff alternately described it as a flat or narrow “metal slab supposedly made of Steel but it was mostly [copper],” or an iron or steel “beam.” The plaintiff’s supervisor described it as “like old duct work, metal studs,” and a representative of [defendant] described it as a “duct” or “ductwork.” Although the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of an expert who opined that a contractor’s lift should have been provided to hold “the beam” as it was being cut, the expert, whose opinion was rendered after reviewing the relevant deposition transcripts, failed to identify a basis for concluding that the object at issue was a “beam” or otherwise explain why a contractor’s lift was required to hold the object at issue, and thereby establish that this was “a situation where a hoisting or securing device of the kind enumerated in the statute would have been necessary or even expected” … . Romero v 2200 N. Steel, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 02075, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OBJECT THAT FELL WAS THE TYPE OF OBJECT WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED WITH A SAFETY DEVICE ENUMERATED IN THE LABOR LAW STATUTE)

You might also like
DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION UNSUCCESSFULLY RAISED USURY AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; DEFENDANT ARGUED THE BROKER’S COMMISSION, TITLE INSURANCE COST AND ATTORNEY’S FEE CONSTITUTED A COVER FOR USURY (SECOND DEPT).
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WHICH ARISES FROM THE ACTION BROUGHT IS NOT TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
THE GRANTOR WAS NOT THE SOLE HEIR OF THE TITLE HOLDER; THEREFORE THE DEED PURPORTING TO TRANSFER A 100% INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY WAS VOID AB INITIO (SECOND DEPT).
THE KILLING OF ONE PERSON AND WOUNDING OF TWO BY FIRING 13 SHOTS INTO A GROUP OF PEOPLE FROM A ROOFTOP WERE NOT SEPARATE AND DISTINCT OFFENSES, SENTENCES MUST BE CONCURRENT (SECOND DEPT).
CONTRACT WAS ENFORCEABLE DESPITE PARTIES’ EXPECTATION A MORE FORMAL CONTRACT WOULD BE EXECUTED LATER, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONFORM THE COMPLAINT TO THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CONFLICTING TESTIMONY ABOUT WHETHER A CO-WORKER WAS HOLDING THE LADDER PLAINTIFF WAS USING PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING THAT SAFETY DEVICES BE KEPT SOUND AND OPERABLE CONSTITUTED A CONCRETE PREDICATE FOR A LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION WHICH ALLEGED INJURY DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF A “PROTECTOR” ON A GRINDER.
MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ANALYTICAL CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE... PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INJURED ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF...