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
Superior Court Information Jurisdictionally Defective—It Did Not Include Any Offense (or Any Lesser-Included) Which Was in the Original Felony Complaint
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESK LEFT UNATTENDED ON A DOLLY BY DEFENDANT MOVER FELL OVER ONTO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
ALLOCUTION CAST DOUBT ABOUT GUILT IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT FOR APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT AND IRRELEVANT MOLINEUX EVIDENCE REQUIRED REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH IT APPEARS THE POLICE HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST THE DEFENDANT BEFORE THEY ENTERED THE HOME AND THEREFORE COULD HAVE GOTTEN AN ARREST WARRANT, THERE WAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION BECAUSE THE POLICE ENTERED THE HOME WITH CONSENT; DEFENSE COUNSEL ARGUED THE POLICE DID NOT GET A WARRANT TO DELAY THE ATTACHMENT OF THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL AND PROCURE STATEMENTS (SECOND DEPT).
Burden Is On Parent to Demonstrate Exception to Statutory Relief from Making Reasonable Efforts to Reunite
ALTHOUGH THE ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY DOES NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION THE REAR DRIVER WAS NEGLIGENT IN A REAR-END COLLISION, THE REAR-DRIVER’S ALLEGATION THE PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY FOR NO APPARENT REASON CREATES A QUESTION OF FACT ON THE ISSUE OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DIVING UNDER A TRUCK WHEN THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION AS A BROKEN UTILITY POLE WITH LIVE ELECTRIC WIRES WAS BEING HOISTED; THE WORK WAS NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SO THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION; QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF THE EXPLOSION AND SUPERVISORY CONTROL PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
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...