You are here: / / LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF,...

LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS USING STILTS, FELL WHEN A STILT CONTACTED AN OBJECT ON THE FLOOR.

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor law 240 (1) action should not have been granted. Plaintiff was using stilts to work on a ceiling when a stilt contacted a conduit on the floor, causing him to fall:

Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant established its entitlement to judgment on the theory that plaintiff’s fall was caused solely by stepping on the conduit, i.e., a “separate hazard wholly unrelated to the risk which brought about the need for the safety device in the first place” … , we nevertheless conclude that plaintiff raised an issue of fact sufficient to defeat the motion … In his affidavit submitted in opposition to defendant’s motion, plaintiff clarified his deposition testimony with respect to why and how he fell … . Plaintiff was installing the last of eight ceiling tiles in a room. He explained in his deposition and in his affidavit that his work was obstructed by electrical wiring and conduit in the ceiling that had not been properly secured, thereby leaving limited space in which to install the tile, which measured two feet by four feet. With his arms fully extended overhead while attempting to move and secure the electrical wiring and conduit, he lost his balance and was forced to step backwards, at which point his right stilt came into contact with the conduit and he fell. Thus, plaintiff raised an issue of fact whether his “injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant height differential” while he was attempting to secure the electrical wiring and conduit in the ceiling in order to install the ceiling tile … , and were not solely caused by the presence of the conduit on the floor … . Piche v Synergy Tooling Sys., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 03673, 4th Dept 5-5-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS USING STILTS, FELL WHEN A STILT CONTACTED AN OBJECT ON THE FLOOR)/STILTS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS USING STILTS, FELL WHEN A STILT CONTACTED AN OBJECT ON THE FLOOR)

You might also like
Failure to Make Motion for Trial Order of Dismissal Not Ineffective Assistance
THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE RELEVANT WORK, HOWEVER THE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON THE CREATION AND NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE ISSUES WERE NOT RAISED ON APPEAL, THE APPELLATE COURT VACATED THE SENTENCES EITHER BECAUSE THE CONCURRENT SENTENCES WERE ILLEGAL OR BECAUSE THE GUILTY PLEAS WERE INDUCED BY THE PROMISE OF ILLEGAL CONCURRENT SENTENCES (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE AIR BAG UNEXPECTEDLY DEPLOYED, CAUSING INJURY; DEFENDANT FORD’S EXPERT EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CAUSE OF THE DEPLOYMENT WAS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO A PRODUCT DEFECT (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STAIRWAY WHICH COLLAPSED WAS TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT, ONLY TEMPORARY STAIRWAYS ARE COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PROJECT MANAGER HAD SUFFICIENT SUPERVISORY CONTROL TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 (FOURTH DEPT).
THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE NOTE WAS NOT RECOVERABLE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ACCELERATION CLAUSE; CLAIMS FOR UNPAID INSTALLMENTS DUE MORE THAN SIX YEARS BEFORE FILING SUIT WERE TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).
UNDER THE DRUG LAW REFORM ACT (DRLA) A DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF A QUALIFYING DRUG FELONY CANNOT BE SENTENCED AS A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Pedigree Question “Where Do You Reside,” Under the Circumstances, Was Designed to Elicit an Incriminating Response, the Answer, Therefore, Should Have Been Suppressed; New Trial on Possessory Counts Ordered

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

PARTIES HAD STANDING TO CONTEST THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ISSUED PURSUANT TO... PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, AN ANESTHESIOLOGIST, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HOW HE WAS...