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
THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE FORFEITURE OF THE VEHICLE USED FOR FOOD VENDING WITHOUT A LICENSE IS “PUNITIVE” IN NATURE AND VIOLATES THE “EXCESSIVE FINES” CLAUSES OF THE NEW YORK STATE AND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS; THE FINES IMPOSED FOR THE FOOD VENDING VIOLATION WERE $2600 AND THE VALUE OF THE VEHICLE IS $40,000 (FIRST DEPT).
Criteria for Challenge to Prenuptial Agreement Not Met
FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR WHO EXPRESSED BIAS IN FAVOR OF THE CREDIBILITY OF POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
JUDICIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM AVAILABLE TO DEFENDANTS CHARGED WITH BOTH QUALIFYING OFFENSES AND OFFENSES WHICH ARE NEITHER QUALIFYING NOR DISQUALIFYING.
THE FRAUD CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE “OUT OF POCKET” DAMAGES WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S CONNECTICUT CONVICTION WAS NOT EQUIVALENT TO A NEW YORK REGISTRABLE OFFENSE; THE CIVIL APPEALS STANDARDS APPLY; ALTHOUGH NOT PRESERVED, THE ISSUE PRESENTS A PURE QUESTION OF LAW, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF RAISED BELOW AND THE RECORD WAS SUFFICIENT FOR REVIEW (FIRST DEPT).
Plaintiff Unable to Prove Actual Malice—Summary Judgment to Defendant
FAILURE TO PROVIDE SEATBELTS IN A TAXICAB VIOLATES THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW AND IS NEGLIGENCE AS A MATTER OF LAW (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 © 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,...