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
DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DEPRESSION OR HOLE PLAINTIFF STEPPED INTO, AREA WAS COVERED WITH GRASS AND APPEARED TO BE LEVEL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(1) [Documentary Evidence] Should Not Have Been Granted—Plaintiff Rebutted the Presumption of Validity of the Forum Selection Clause of the Relevant Contract
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SALES COUNTER AND DISPLAY UNIT INSTALLED AT THE OUTSET OF THE LEASE WAS A TRADE FIXTURE WHICH COULD BE REMOVED BY THE TENANT OR A PERMANENT FIXTURE WHICH COULD NOT BE REMOVED (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER WAS A PARTY ALONG WITH DECEDENT IN SEVERAL ACTIONS WHICH RESULTED IN PENDING APPEALS, PETITIONER THEREFORE HAD STANDING TO SEEK THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEDENT, SURROGATE’S COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL INJURED BREAKING UP A STUDENT FIGHT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
TREE CUTTING NOT COVERED, PILE OF DEBRIS NOT A STRUCTURE, OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200.
Brutality of Offense Warranted an Upward Departure in SORA Proceeding
DEFENDANT MOVED TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA ON THE GROUND HE WAS NOT AWARE HE COULD PERMANENTLY LOSE HIS DRIVER LICENSE BASED ON THE PLEA; THE MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; POST-REVOCATION RELICENSING IS OUTSIDE OF THE COURTS’ CONTROL (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

AGE DISCRIMINATION LAWSUIT PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF... HOLOCAUST EXPROPRIATED ART RECOVERY ACT CONTROLS THE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS...