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
ALTHOUGH THE POLICE RECEIVED AN ANONYMOUS TIP THAT A MAN MATCHING DEFENDANT’S DESCRIPTION HAD A GUN, THE POLICE SAW NO SIGN OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY WHEN THEY APPROACHED AND QUESTIONED THE DEFENDANT, THE SUBSEQUENT SEIZURE AND FRISK OF THE DEFENDANT WAS ILLEGAL (FIRST DEPT).
Operating a Scaffold for the Benefit of an Enumerated Activity Done by Others (Caulking) Entitles Scaffold Operator to Coverage Under Labor Law 240 (1)
Complaint Sufficiently Alleged Facts to Support Piercing the Corporate Veil
Duty to Defend
A SOPHISTICATED PARTY’S REQUEST FOR AND RECEIPT OF WRITTEN ASSURANCES FROM DEFENDANT WAS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR A DUE DILIGENCE INQUIRY, SUPREME COURT’S DISMISSAL OF FRAUD ACTION REVERSED.
THE USE OF ICE PACKS WAS NOT PART OF THE DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER’S BURN-TREATMENT SYSTEM; THEREFORE THE DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE BY THE INJURED PLAINTIFF FOR THE FAILURE TO WARN AGAINST APPLYING ICE PACKS TO BARE SKIN (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A FALLING OBJECT; COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A DEFENSE TO A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1), 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER ONE OF THE DEFENDANT’S EXERCISED SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE SITE (FIRST DEPT).
UNSECURED, DAMAGED LADDER WOBBLED AND PLAINTIFF FELL, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST 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 © 2025 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,...