You are here: / / TAKING MEASUREMENTS IN PREPARATION FOR ROOF WORK IS AN ACTIVITY COVERED...

TAKING MEASUREMENTS IN PREPARATION FOR ROOF WORK IS AN ACTIVITY COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON HIS FALL FROM A BROKEN LADDER WAS PROPERLY GRANTED.

The First Department determined plaintiff was properly awarded summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. The ladder plaintiff was using to take measurements in preparation for work broke. Taking measurements is an activity covered by the Labor Law:

The motion court correctly determined that plaintiffs were entitled to partial summary judgment against defendant owners on the issue of section 240(1) liability because the ladder that plaintiff … was using to take measurements in preparation for work to be performed on the roof of defendant owners’ building broke, causing him to fall to the ground … . Contrary to defendant owners’ contention, the work that plaintiff was engaged in was a protected activity within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Ortiz-Cruz v Evers, 2017 NY Slip Op 04228, 1st Dept 5-30-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (TAKING MEASUREMENTS IN PREPARATION FOR ROOF WORK IS AN ACTIVITY COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON HIS FALL FROM A BROKEN LADDER WAS PROPERLY GRANTED)/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, TAKING MEASUREMENTS IN PREPARATION FOR ROOF WORK IS AN ACTIVITY COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON HIS FALL FROM A BROKEN LADDER WAS PROPERLY GRANTED)/MEASURING (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, (TAKING MEASUREMENTS IN PREPARATION FOR ROOF WORK IS AN ACTIVITY COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON HIS FALL FROM A BROKEN LADDER WAS PROPERLY GRANTED)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE; QUESTION OF FACT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
Action for Contingency Fee; No Demonstration Law Firm Had Been Discharged
THE CONSOLIDATED TRIAL OF TWO SEPARATE CRIMINAL TRANSACTIONS, COUPLED WITH THE ABSENCE OF LIMITING JURY INSTRUCTIONS, CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (FIRST DEPT). ​
EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE ADEQUATELY PLED, LAW FIRM MAY BE PROHIBITED FROM ARGUING THE ASSIGNMENT IT DREW UP FOR PLAINTIFF DID NOT ASSIGN PLAINTIFF THE RIGHT TO BRING A MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST IT.
PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY ABOUT HOW THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT HAPPENED FOUND INCREDIBLE AS A MATTER OF LAW AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE, DISSENT ARGUED THE TESTIMONY RAISED CLASSIC QUESTIONS OF FACT FOR THE JURY TO DETERMINE (FIRST DEPT). ​
FATHER WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS WHEN THE COURT TOOK SIX MONTHS TO HOLD A POST-DISPOSITIONAL HEARING AFTER A FAILED TRIAL DISCHARGE OF THE CHILDREN TO FATHER; THE CHILDREN WERE FINALLY RETURNED TO FATHER AND THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).
Allegation Release Procured by Fraud Precluded Dismissal of Complaint
Spoliation, Discovery Abuse Sanctions, Equitable Estoppel.

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

THE ABSENCE FROM THE JURY CHARGE OF AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF ATTEMPTED ROBBERY... PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE THE CITY HAD WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SIGN POST STUMP...