You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BRICKS WHICH STRUCK PLAINTIFF WERE DELIBERATELY...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BRICKS WHICH STRUCK PLAINTIFF WERE DELIBERATELY DROPPED, WHICH WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined a question of fact precluded summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff was struck by falling bricks outside a building. If the bricks fell accidentally, Labor Law 240 (1) would cover the injury, if the bricks were deliberately dropped, Labor Law 240 (1) would not cover the injury. In addition, the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action was deemed properly dismissed because the incident occurred outside the building:

​

Plaintiff was allegedly struck by falling bricks while working near one of four connected buildings on a construction site. The motion court correctly denied both plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim and defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing that claim, as there are issues of fact about whether the bricks fell accidently or were deliberately dropped by demolition workers. If the latter, then the bricks did not constitute falling objects pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) … . …

​

The motion court correctly dismissed the Labor Law § 241(6) claim predicated on an alleged violation of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-3.3(g), based on plaintiff’s testimony that his accident occurred outside rather than “within [a] building” (12 NYCRR 23-3.3[g]). Torres v Love Lane Mews, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08467, First Dept 12-5-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BRICKS WHICH STRUCK PLAINTIFF WERE DELIBERATELY DROPPED, WHICH WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT))/FALLING OBJECTS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BRICKS WHICH STRUCK PLAINTIFF WERE DELIBERATELY DROPPED, WHICH WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INJURY WAS CAUSED BY THE ACCIDENT, AS OPPOSED TO A DEGENERATIVE DISEASE; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT.
THERE IS NO BRIGHT-LINE MINIMUM HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL FOR AN ELEVATION HAZARD PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240(1); HERE A FALL OF 10.5 TO 20 INCHES FROM A STACK OF PALLETS WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
THE LANDOWNER AND THE TENANT TAXI COMPANY HAD THE SAME PRINCIPAL, A HOSE WAS USED BY INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS TO WASH THE TAXIS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED ON THE WATER FROM THE HOSE WHICH FROZE, THE LANDOWNER DID NOT ESTABLISH IT WAS AN OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD, THE LANDOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PRESENCE OF LOOSE GRANULES WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO SLIP TO HIS KNEES VIOLATED INDUSTRIAL CODE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY NOT ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTION BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN 1974 DID NOT HAVE LEAD PAINT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.
THE ARBITRATION AWARD IS VALID EVEN IF BASED ON AN ERROR OF LAW OR FACT; THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE A LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT DID NOT PRECLUDE THE ATTORNEY’S ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT; CPLR 5225 DOES NOT REQUIRE A SPECIAL PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
PARTICIPATION IN A PRISON SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT PROGRAM WAS NOT ENOUGH TO AVOID A 10-POINT ASSESSMENT FOR FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING (FIRST DEPT).
CONVERSION, REPLEVIN AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION TIME-BARRED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

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

SUBSTANTIAL PAIN ELEMENT OF ASSAULT THIRD EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT). PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION,...