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
Additional Information Constituted a “Supplemental” Bill of Particulars, Not an “Amended” Bill of Particulars—Motion In Limine Properly Denied
GRAND JURY MINUTES SHOULD NOT BE RELEASED IN THIS CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION STEMMING FROM A FATAL SHOOTING BY A POLICE OFFICER.
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PUDDLE ON THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Competency of Evidence Before Grand Jury Not Reviewable On Appeal Where Defendant Convicted Upon Legally Sufficient Trial Evidence
SIGN ON PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY SAYING THE DEFENDANT “SCREWED US BEWARE” WAS ACTIONABLE DEFAMATION, MOTION TO DISMISS THE DEFAMATION COUNTERCLAIM IN THIS CONTRACT ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).
POLICE OFFICER DID NOT HAVE REASON TO REACH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S POCKET DURING A FRISK FOR WEAPONS, THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INVENTORY SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WHICH LACKED A VALID INSPECTION STICKER WAS PROPER (FOURTH DEPT).
Sentence Could Be Challenged In Spite of Waiver of Appeal.
THE SUPPRESSION COURT DID NOT RULE ON DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THE INITIAL PURSUIT BY THE POLICE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED; AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT CONSIDER AN ISSUE NOT RULED UPON; MATTER REMITTED (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 © 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...