You are here: / / DEFECT WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL WAS NOT DESIGNED TO PROTECT...

DEFECT WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL WAS NOT DESIGNED TO PROTECT AGAINST FALLS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), PLAINTIFF NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION OR EXCAVATION, THEREFORE LABOR LAW 241 (6) NOT APPLICABLE.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly dismissed because, although he fell when getting out of an aerial bucket, the bucket was not extended and his injury was not related to the failure of a safety device designed to prevent falls. Plaintiff alleged he fell from the bucket because his foot got caught in an electrical device inside the bucket from which the cover was missing. In addition, the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action was properly dismissed because plaintiff was not involved in construction, demolition or excavation at the time of the injury (he was hired to place an antenna on a utility pole):

​

… [T]he bucket truck from which the injured plaintiff fell was not defective or inadequate insofar as it related to providing him with fall protection … . Although the dielectric liner was missing from the bucket, the injured plaintiff’s own deposition testimony was that this device was designed to protect workers from electrical shocks, and not falls. Therefore, its absence did not constitute a failure to protect pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) … . …

​

Further, the … defendants established, prima facie, that the work the injured plaintiff was performing at the time of the accident did not involve construction, demolition, or excavation and, accordingly, that Labor Law § 241(6) does not apply … . Robinson v National Grid Energy Mgt., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 03787, 2nd  Dept 5-10-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (DEFECT WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO FALL WAS NOT DESIGNED TO PROTECT AGAINST FALLS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), PLAINTIFF NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION OR EXCAVATION, THEREFORE LABOR LAW 241 (6) NOT APPLICABLE)

You might also like
Because the “Identity” of the Perpetrator Was Not an Issue, Allowing Evidence of Prior Crimes to Prove Identity Was Reversible Error.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OR REPAIR COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHEN HE FELL FROM A LADDER 2ND DEPT.
STATUTORY CRITERIA OF CPLR 3216 NOT MET, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT).
PEOPLE’S REQUEST TO DENY DISCLOSURE BECAUSE OF CONCERNS FOR WITNESS SAFETY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN ITS ENTIRETY (SECOND DEPT).
THE 2ND DEPARTMENT CRITICIZED THE PIECEMEAL DECISION-MAKING BY SUPREME COURT IN THIS COMPLEX DIVORCE PROCEEDING WHICH RESULTED IN AN INADEQUATE RECORD ON APPEAL; HOWEVER THE 2ND DEPARTMENT ADDRESSED MANY OF THE FACTUAL ISSUES IN A DETAILED OPINION WORTH READING BUT IMPOSSIBLE TO SUMMARIZE HERE (SECOND DEPT).
Dismissal for Failure to Show Up at a Conference with the Judge Constituted a Dismissal for Neglect to Prosecute within the Meaning of CPLR 205/2008 Amendment to CPLR 205 Did Not Apply Retroactively
THE PLEA ALLOCUTION RAISED THE POSSIBILITY OF DURESS AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; THE JUDGE MADE NO INQUIRY INTO THE VALIDITY OF PLEA; CONVICTION REVERSED DESPITE DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER’S ABUSE AND NEGLECT OF ONE CHILD, HANNAH D, SUPPORTED THE FINDING FATHER DERIVATIVELY ABUSED TWO OTHER CHILDREN, EVEN THOUGH ONE WAS AN INFANT AND THE OTHER HAD NOT BEEN BORN AT THE TIME OF THE ABUSE OF HANNAH D (SECOND 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW 90-DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENT FOR FORECLOSURE... HOMEOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND...