You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT, CREATED BY CONFLICTING EXPERTS, WHETHER OUTSIDE STEEL...

QUESTION OF FACT, CREATED BY CONFLICTING EXPERTS, WHETHER OUTSIDE STEEL STAIRCASE WAS SAFE FOR USE IN WET WEATHER, PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, determined plaintiff’s summary judgment motion on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should not have been granted. Plaintiff fell down a temporary steel staircase which was wet from rain. There were conflicting expert affidavits about the safety of the stairs:

To the extent the Appellate Division opinion below can be read to say that a statutory violation occurred merely because plaintiff fell down the stairs, it does not provide an accurate statement of the law. As we have made clear, the fact that a worker falls at a construction site, in itself, does not establish a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) … . Moreover, the present case is distinguishable from “cases involving ladders or scaffolds that collapse or malfunction for no apparent reason” where we have applied “a presumption that the ladder or scaffolding device was not good enough to afford proper protection” … .

Here, by contrast, there are questions of fact as to whether the staircase provided adequate protection. As noted above, defendants’ expert opined that the staircase was designed to allow for outdoor use and to provide necessary traction in inclement weather. Moreover, defendants’ expert opined that additional anti-slip measures were not warranted. In addition, he disputed the assertions by plaintiff’s expert that the staircase was worn down or that it was unusually narrow or steep. In light of the above, plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability. O’Brien v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2017 NY Slip Op 02466, CtApp 3-30-17

 

You might also like
HERE THE TOWN PASSED A LOCAL LAW REQUIRING THE CLOSURE OF A LANDFILL OWNED AND OPERATED BY SMI; BECAUSE SMI’S PROPERTY IS THE VERY SUBJECT OF THE LOCAL LAW, SMI NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE “ENVIRONMENTAL HARM” AS AN ELEMENT OF STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE TOWN’S STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA) DECLARATION THAT THE CLOSURE OF THE LANDFILL WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; SMI HAS STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE TOWN’S NEGATIVE SEQRA DECLARATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE TOWN DID NOT TAKE THE REQUIRED “HARD LOOK” AT THE EVIDENCE BEFORE ISSUING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CT APP). ​
Entering the Victim’s Domicile With the Intent to Assault the Victim Who Died from His Injuries Constitutes Felony Murder (Murder Committed During a Burglary)
JUDGE’S FIRST AGREEING WITH PROSECUTION’S REQUEST NOT TO CHARGE THE JURY WITH CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION AND THEN GIVING THE CHARGE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR.
general business law 627-a, which requires that a health club have an automated external defibrillator and a person qualified to use it does not impose tort liability on the club for failure to use it.
FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AND FAILURE TO CHALLENGE A FRISK DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE GRAND JURY ON THE DEFENSE OF PROPERTY JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THE MURDER/MANSLAUGHTER INDICTMENT (CT APP).
HERE THE DEFENDANT CLAIMED HE ACTED IN SELF-DEFENSE WHEN HE STABBED THE VICTIM WITH A PEN KNIFE; THE DEFENDANT SOUGHT TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF THE VICTIM’S PRIOR VIOLENT ACTS IN SUPPORT OF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE; THE TRIAL JUDGE INSTRUCTED THE JURY ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE BUT DID NOT ALLOW EVIDENCE OF THE VICTIM’S PRIOR VIOLENT ACTS TO BE CONSIDERED ON THAT ISSUE; THE COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, UPHOLDING THE RULE THAT THE VICTIM’S PRIOR VIOLENT ACTS ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF JUSTIFICATION UNLESS THE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE PRIOR VIOLENT ACTS AT THE TIME OF THE INCIDENT (CT APP).
“EXEMPT EMPLOYEES” UNDER THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW ARE TERMINABLE AT WILL; A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTS TO MAKE AN EXEMPT EMPLOYEE TERMINABLE FOR CAUSE IS UNENFORCEABLE (CT APP).

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

DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED POINTS UNDER RISK FACTOR 7, DEFENDANT... DEFENDANTS’ DEMAND FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY...