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
A LOCAL ONLINE NEWS OUTLET SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM A FAMILY COURT HEARING REGARDING WHETHER A DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED FROM A NEGLECT PROCEEDING ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST GROUNDS; THE OUTLET IS ENTITLED TO A TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING (FOURTH DEPT). ​
LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF BITTEN BY TENANT’S DOG (FOURTH DEPT).
FATHER WAS NOT SERVED WITH THE ORDER OF FACT-FINDING AND DISPOSITION IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY FAMILY COURT ACT 1113 (FATHER WAS SERVED BY EMAIL) AND THEREFORE THE 30-DAY APPEAL DEADLINE DID NOT APPLY; FATHER’S STRIKING THE 14-YEAR-OLD CHILD ONCE DURING A MULTI-PERSON MELEE AFTER THE CHILD BROKE THE WINDOW OF FATHER’S CAR WITH A ROCK DID NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLECT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE SOLAR ARRAY IS ATTACHED TO THE COLLEGE’S LAND AND IS THEREFORE TAXABLE REAL PROPERTY; THE ARRAY IS OWNED BY THE INSTALLER, NOT THE COLLEGE, AND IS THEREFORE NOT EXEMPT FROM TAXATION (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT, WHO WAS CONVICTED OF STATUTORY RAPE (NO FORCE) WHEN HE WAS 18 IN 1996, SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED A LEVEL ONE, NOT LEVEL TWO, RISK (FOURTH DEPT).
WHETHER TO MOVE FOR A MISTRIAL IS A DECISION FOR DEFENSE COUNSEL, NOT DEFENDANT, THE JUDGE’S ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO DECIDE VIOLATED THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT).
No Exigent Circumstances—Warrantless Search of Home Not Justified
Suppression Ruling Reversed—Pat Down Search Justified for Officer Safety​

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

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...