You are here: / / DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS’ LABOR...

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS’ LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment should not have been granted in this Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200 action. Plaintiff alleged he was directed to work without a scaffold. He rigged up a ladder with planks on it placed horizontally over a fire escape as a makeshift scaffold. The ladder tipped when a heavy object was placed on it and plaintiff fell:

​

Under Labor Law § 240(1), owners and general contractors, and their agents, have a nondelegable duty to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites … . “In order to prevail on a claim under Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must establish that the statute was violated and that this violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries” … . No recovery is available under Labor Law § 240(1) when the plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident … .

​

Here, the evidence submitted on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment failed to establish, prima facie, that no [Labor Law 240(1)] violation occurred, or that the alleged violation was not a proximate cause of the accident … . …

​

Labor Law § 200 codifies the common-law duty of an owner or contractor to provide workers with a reasonably safe place to work … . * * *

​

Here, the cause of action arose out of alleged defects or dangers in the methods or materials of the work. The defendants failed, prima facie, to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether [defendant] had the authority to supervise or control the injured plaintiff’s work, and as to causation … .

Labor Law § 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty on owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety for workers and to comply with the specific safety rules and regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department of Labor … .  Here, the plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, a violation of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.16, which requires, in relevant part, that safety belts and harnesses be properly attached to a tail line or lifeline so that “if the user should fall such fall shall not exceed five feet” … . King v Villette, 2017 NY Slip Op 07596, Second Dept 11-1-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFFS’ LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF HUSBAND IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION INSTALLED SPYWARE WHICH INTERCEPTED DEFENDANT WIFE’S PHONE CALLS AND THEN DESTROYED THE CONTENTS OF THE INTERCEPTION; THE INTERCEPTION VIOLATED DEFENDANT WIFE’S ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE; SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE PROPERLY INCLUDED STRIKING THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR SPOUSAL SUPPORT, EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (SECOND DEPT).
AFTER RESPONDENT-STUDENT THREATENED TO “SHOOT… UP THE SCHOOL,” PETITIONER-POLICE-DEPARTMENT FILED A PETITION FOR AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER PURSUANT TO CPLR ARTICLE 63-A WHICH SUPREME COURT DENIED ON THE GROUND THE STATUTE VIOLATES THE SECOND AMENDMENT; THE APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED FINDING THE STATUTE CONSTITUTIONAL (SECOND DEPT).
PRE-LITIGATION INVESTIGATION BY THE INSURER’S LAW FIRM INTO WHETHER TO REJECT OR PAY AN INSURANCE CLAIM IS NOT PRIVILEGED AND IS DISCOVERABLE, THE ATTORNEY WHO CONDUCTED THE INVESTIGATION WAS PROPERLY DISQUALIFIED FROM THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION, BUT HER LAW FIRM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Enter a Default Judgment within One Year Justified Dismissal of the Complaint as Abandoned
DEFENDANT WHICH BUILT THE SWIMMING POOL, DEFENDANT WHICH INSTALLED THE POOL LINER, AND DEFENDANT OWNERS OF THE POOL, WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SWIMMING POOL INJURY CASE, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE DOVE IN AND STRUCK HIS CHIN IN A SHALLOW AREA (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT SELLER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF BUYER COULD NOT BE READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY BY POINTING TO REQUIREMENTS IN THE COMMITMENT LETTER, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF AN AGREEMENT WITH DEFENDANT ABOUT EACH HAVING 50% OWNERSHIP OF TWO RESTAURANTS; DEFENDANT USED THE RESOURCES FROM THOSE RESTAURANTS TO OPEN A THIRD; PLAINTIFF’S CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
CLAIMANT FELL ATTEMPTING TO MOVE FROM AN UPPER WALKWAY TO A LOWER WALKWAY; CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).