You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES WERE CAUSED BY THE...

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES WERE CAUSED BY THE PLACEMENT OF THE SCAFFOLD OR THE ABSENCE OF RAILINGS.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether plaintiff’s fall was caused by the placement of the scaffold or the absence of railings on the scaffold:

We conclude that plaintiff failed to establish his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law under that statute. Specifically, we conclude that there is an issue of fact whether the scaffold failed to provide proper protection because it was not properly placed, thereby precipitating plaintiff’s fall, or ” whether plaintiff simply lost his balance and fell’ ” when his head struck the beam … . Plaintiff likewise failed to establish as a matter of law that the lack of safety railings on the scaffold, as required by 12 NYCRR 23-5.18 (b) … , is a sufficient basis for a determination of liability under section 240 (1) that the scaffold failed to provide plaintiff proper protection. Rather, we conclude that there is an issue of fact whether the presence of rails would have prevented his fall … . Kopasz v City of Buffalo, 2017 NY Slip Op 02305, 4th Dept 3-24-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES WERE CAUSED BY THE PLACEMENT OF THE SCAFFOLD OR THE ABSENCE OF RAILINGS)/SCAFFOLDS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES WERE CAUSED BY THE PLACEMENT OF THE SCAFFOLD OR THE ABSENCE OF RAILINGS)

You might also like
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE HEARSAY ALLEGATIONS IN THE SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH TWO DIFFERENT RESIDENCES; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE APPLICATION DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH ONE OF THE TWO RESIDENCES, I.E., THERE WERE NO DETAILS DESCRIBING THE NARCOTICS THE INFORMANT OBSERVED IN THE RESIDENCE AND NO INDICATION WHEN THE OBSERVATON WAS MADE (FOURTH DEPT).
WILL THAT CANNOT BE FOUND IS PRESUMED REVOKED, HERE PETITIONER DID NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF REVOCATION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).
Homeowners’ Association Had Power to Direct Property Owners to Remove Chickens
TRIAL JUDGE’S GRANT OF A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL IN THIS MURDER CASE WAS ERROR, HOWEVER THERE IS NO STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR THE PEOPLE’S APPEAL.
All But Rape First Charges Were Time-Barred—Different Statute of Limitations for Rape First
THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE VEHICLE IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER WHEN AN OFFICER ENTERED THE VEHICLE TO RETRIEVE THE REGISTRATION AND SAW A HANDGUN; THE DEFENDANT HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE SEIZURE BECAUSE OF THE PEOPLE’S RELIANCE ON THE STATUTORY AUTOMOBILE PRESUMPTION; THE HANDGUN SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).
General Question Whether Defendant Was “A Law Abiding Person” Violated Sandoval Ruling and Required Reversal.
Court Properly Ordered Further Deposition of County Employee and the Deposition of the Commissioner of Public Works Based Upon Plaintiff’s Showing the Witness Previously Provided Did Not Have Sufficient Knowledge

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

SORA GUIDELINE WHICH ALLOWS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION TO BE CONSIDERED... FALL FROM FIRST FLOOR TO BASEMENT FLOOR IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), THE...