You are here: / / FALL FROM FIRST FLOOR TO BASEMENT FLOOR IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1),...

FALL FROM FIRST FLOOR TO BASEMENT FLOOR IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), THE UNGUARDED OPENING VIOLATED A PROVISION OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE.

The Fourth Department, overruling precedent, determined a fall from the first floor through an unguarded opening to the basement floor was a covered event under Labor Law 240 (1) and the unguarded opening violated a provision of the Industrial Code.  The decision covers a number of other substantive issues (not summarized here) including statutory agent liability, Labor Law 200 and common law negligence liability, and indemnfication:

We agree with plaintiffs that the court erred in denying that part of their motion seeking partial summary judgment on liability on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and in granting, instead, those parts of the motion of Gates and cross motion of Nolan seeking dismissal of that claim against them. We therefore further modify the order by denying those parts of the motion and cross motion, reinstating that claim, and granting that part of plaintiffs’ motion. As a preliminary matter, we note that the court relied on our decision in Riley v Stickl Constr. Co. (242 AD2d 936) for its determination that a fall from the first floor through an unguarded opening to the basement is not a fall from an elevated worksite within the meaning of section 240 (1). To the extent that Riley stands for the proposition that a worker falling from the first floor to the basement is not protected by section 240 (1), that decision is no longer to be followed. Instead, we conclude that, because there was a “difference between the elevation level of the required work and a lower level” … , and “[b]ecause plaintiff fell through an opening in the floor, [plaintiffs are] entitled to judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1)”… .

We further conclude that the court erred in denying that part of plaintiffs’ motion seeking summary judgment on the limited issue whether 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1) was violated, and we therefore further modify the order accordingly. That regulation, which is sufficiently specific to support a cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6) … , requires protection from hazardous openings. It is undisputed that the protective railings and the plywood cover had been removed from the stairwell opening and that plaintiff fell through the opening to the floor below. McKay v Weeden, 2017 NY Slip Op 02327, 4th Dept 3-24-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FALL FROM FIRST FLOOR TO BASEMENT FLOOR IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), THE UNGUARDED OPENING VIOLATED A PROVISION OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE)

You might also like
ROBBERY WAS THE FELONY UPON WHICH THE FELONY ASSAULT WAS PREDICATED; THEREFORE THE SENTENCES FOR ASSAULT FIRST AND ROBBERY FIRST MUST RUN CONCURRENTLY (FOURTH DEPT).
Trial Court Properly Pierced the Corporate Veil/Criteria for Review of a Bench Trial and for Piercing the Corporate Veil Explained
A COURT CANNOT MANDATE A SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS EXERCISE FOR A CHILD (ORDERING THAT A CHILD ATTEND A SPECIFIC CHURCH FOR EXAMPLE); RATHER, THE COURT SHOULD DESIGNATE A PARENT TO HAVE DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY OVER A CHILD’S RELIGIOUS EDUCATION AND EXCERCISE (FOURTH DEPT).
EXPERT EVIDENCE ON CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE ACCOMMODATION SYNDROME (CSAAS) WAS IMPROPERLY ADMITTED TO SHOW THE VICTIM WAS ABUSED, CONVICTIONS REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS DRUG OFFENSE TRIAL, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED IMPEACHMENT OF DEFENDANT WITH EVIDENCE OF PRIOR DRUG-RELATED CONVICTIONS.
Trial Judge Should Have Allowed Slightly Late Peremptory Challenge—Conviction Reversed
IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE OF A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION OF THE ACCIDENT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO A JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT; THE ARGUMENT THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED QUICKLY IN STOP AND GO TRAFFIC IS NOT A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION OF A REAR-END COLLISION (FOURTH DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DRAWN AN ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST FATHER BASED UPON FATHER’S FAILURE TO CALL HIS GIRLFRIEND AS A WITNESS WITHOUT FIRST INFORMING FATHER AND GIVING FATHER A CHANCE TO EXPLAIN, ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER (FOURTH 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

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES WERE CAUSED BY THE PLACEMENT... CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD HAS THE CAPACITY TO SUE AND STANDING TO BRING AN ARTICLE...