You are here: / / LABOR LAW 240(1) NOT APPLICABLE TO INJURY FROM A PORTION OF A FENCE WHICH...

LABOR LAW 240(1) NOT APPLICABLE TO INJURY FROM A PORTION OF A FENCE WHICH FELL ON PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant property owner was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff alleged a portion of a plywood fence around the work site fell on him. The “falling object” provisions of the Labor Law 240(1) did not apply:

To prevail on a cause of action pursuant to section 240(1) in a ” falling object’ case, the injured worker must demonstrate the existence of a hazard contemplated under that statute and the failure to use, or the inadequacy of, a safety device of the kind enumerated therein'”… . This requires a showing that at the time the object fell, it either was being hoisted or secured, or required securing for the purposes of the undertaking … . Labor Law § 240(1) “does not automatically apply simply because an object fell and injured a worker” … . In support of their cross motion, the defendants made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action by demonstrating that the plywood fence was not an object being hoisted or that required securing for the purpose of the undertaking, and that it did not fall because of the absence or inadequacy of an enumerated safety device … . Berman-Rey v Gomez, 2017 NY Slip Op 06151, 2nd Dept 8-16-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (LABOR LAW 240(1) NOT APPLICABLE TO INJURY FROM A PORTION OF A FENCE WHICH FELL ON PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT))/FALLING OBJECTS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, LABOR LAW 240(1) NOT APPLICABLE TO INJURY FROM A PORTION OF A FENCE WHICH FELL ON PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
THE PETITIONERS BROUGHT A HYBRID ARTICLE 78/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION CHALLENGING A LOCAL LAW PROHIBITING SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTIES; THE COURT NOTED THAT THE SUMMARY PROCEDURE AVAILABLE UNDER ARTICLE 78 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE DECLARATORY-JUDGMENT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF A LEAKING WATER HEATER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT HAD BEEN RELEASED FOR 12 YEARS WITHOUT REOFFENDING AT THE TIME OF THE SORA HEARING; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE TO LEVEL ONE (SECOND DEPT).
THE DETECTIVE WHO CONDUCTED THE LINEUP WAS AWARE DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY BUT DID NOT NOTIFY THE ATTORNEY OF THE LINEUP; THE IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE PLAINTIFF BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST A SCHOOL DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT ALLEGING THE SCHOOL DISTRICT NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO PROTECT HER FROM SEXUAL ASSAULT BY A FELLOW STUDENT; THE FACT THAT THE STUDENT COULD NOT BE CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED FOR THE ASSAULT BECAUSE OF HIS AGE DID NOT PRECLUDE REVIVAL OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT; IN OTHER WORDS THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT APPLIES TO REVIVE NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION EVEN IF THE UNDERLYING SEXUAL ASSAULT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENSE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO WHITE JURORS NOT SUPPORTED BY RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS; THE ALLEGED ERROR IN INSTRUCTING THE JURY ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE WAS NOT PRESERVED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE MOTION, BROUGHT AFTER CONVICTION BY A JURY, WAS UNTIMELY AND NOT WARRANTED ON THE MERITS (SECOND DEPT).
In Personal Injury Case, Court Should Not Have Granted Mistrial When Objection Sustained, Lawyer Admonished and Curative Instruction Given

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

COMMENCING A LAWSUIT, STANDING ALONE, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ABUSE OF PROCESS (SECOND... CONSTRUCTION MANAGER DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT CONTROL TO BE LIABLE UNDER...