You are here: / / IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION, PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL FROM A GREASY...

IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION, PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL FROM A GREASY RAMP HE CONSTRUCTED FROM PLANKS, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S CONDUCT WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, reversing the appellate division, determined there was a question of fact whether plaintiff’s own conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Plaintiff had constructed a ramp out of greasy planks to move from the roof to a scaffold. Plaintiff slipped and fell from the ramp:

We agree with the Appellate Division that the fall of … plaintiff was the result of an elevation-related risk for which Labor Law § 240 (1) provides protection. We further conclude, however, that there is a triable issue of fact whether plaintiff’s “own conduct, rather than any violation of Labor Law § 240 (1), was the sole proximate cause of the accident” … . Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to defendants, as we must … , we conclude that plaintiff’s foreman arguably provided conflicting accounts of whether plaintiff had “adequate safety devices available,” whether “he knew both that they were available and that he was expected to use them,” whether “he chose for no good reason not to do so,” and whether “had he not made that choice he would not have been injured” … . Valente v Lend Lease (US) Constr. LMB, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 06400, CtApp 9-5-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL FROM A GREASY RAMP HE CONSTRUCTED FROM PLANKS, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S CONDUCT WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES (CT APP))/SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL FROM A GREASY RAMP HE CONSTRUCTED FROM PLANKS, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S CONDUCT WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES (CT APP))

You might also like
Accomplice Testimony Corroboration Insufficient Under Law Read to Jury
CONSECUTIVE-CONCURRENT SENTENCING RULES EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL, TELLING DEFENDANT HE COULD RECEIVE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR ATTEMPTED FELONY MURDER AND THE UNDERLYING FELONY (ROBBERY) DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.
THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENT CHARGING THE DEFENDANT WITH “FRAUDULENT ACCOSTING” WAS FACIALLY SUFFICIENT; IT WAS ENOUGH TO ALLEGE THAT DEFENDANT SPOKE FIRST TO PERSONS PASSING AROUND HIM ON THE SIDEWALK ASKING FOR DONATIONS FOR THE HOMELESS; THERE WAS NO NEED TO ALLEGE DEFENDANT WAS AGGRESSIVE OR PERSISTENT OR TARGETED AN INDIVIDUAL (CT APP).
Because Defendant’s Resentence to Remedy the Failure to Impose a Period of Post-Release Supervision Was On Appeal, Defendant Had Not Acquired a Legitimate Expectation of Finality in His Sentence such that the Double Jeopardy Clause Was Implicated
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH BURGLARY AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED FELONY, WHICH REQUIRES PROOF THE CRIME WAS MOTIVATED BY SEXUAL GRATIFICATION, THE PEOPLE WERE ENTITLED TO A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF BURGLARY SECOND, WHICH NEED NOT BE MOTIVATED BY SEXUAL GRATIFICATION (CT APP).
PEOPLE DID NOT DELIBERATELY CALL WITNESS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ELICITING THE ASSERTION OF THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION; PEOPLE’S OWN WITNESS PROPERLY IMPEACHED WITH PRIOR STATEMENT; EXPERT TESTIMONY ON EFFECT OF EVENT STRESS ON IDENTIFICATION PROPERLY PRECLUDED.
No Appeal to the Court of Appeals Lies from the Appellate Division’s Affirmance of the Denial of Resentencing Pursuant to the 2004 Drug Law Reform Act (DLRA)
CPLR 1601 DOES NOT ALLOW DAMAGES TO BE APPORTIONED AGAINST THE NON-PARTY STATE IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION IN SUPREME COURT.

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

PETITION TO ADD MAYOR DE BLASIO AS A CANDIDATE PROPERLY DENIED, THE WORKING... JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DEFENSE,...