You are here: / / THREE-FOOT HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL IN ROOF LEVELS WAS NOT THE TYPE OF ELEVATION...

THREE-FOOT HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL IN ROOF LEVELS WAS NOT THE TYPE OF ELEVATION HAZARD CONTEMPLATED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the three-foot height differential between roof levels did not present the type of elevation hazard contemplated by Labor Law 249 (1). Plaintiff climbed to the higher level to retrieve a ladder and fell off when his foot slipped on the edge of the higher level:

​

The plaintiff and his coworker climbed to this higher level of the roof without using any equipment. When the plaintiff attempted to descend to the lower level of the roof, his right foot slipped on the lip of the upper level, and he fell onto the lower level. …

The defendants established … that Labor Law § 240(1) does not apply because the three-foot- height differential between the two levels of the roof did not present the sort of elevation-related risk protected by that statute … . Pita v Roosevelt Union Free Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 08869, Second Dept 12-20-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (THREE-FOOT HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL IN ROOF LEVELS WAS NOT THE TYPE OF ELEVATION HAZARD CONTEMPLATED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT))/ELEVATION RELATED RISK (LABOR LAW 240 (1), THREE-FOOT HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL IN ROOF LEVELS WAS NOT THE TYPE OF ELEVATION HAZARD CONTEMPLATED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
There Can Be More than One Proximate Cause of an Accident—Plaintiff, to Prevail On a Motion for Summary Judgment, Must Demonstrate Both Defendant’s Negligence as a Matter of Law and Plaintiff’s Freedom from Comparative Fault
Denial of “Defective” No-Fault Claim (on Form UB-40) Was of No Effect—Failure to Respond Within 30 Days to a Subsequent “Correct” Claim (on Form NF-5) Precluded Insurer from Raising Defenses to the Claim
Vehicle On a Flatbed Tow Truck Is Not In “Use or Operation” Within Meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law 388
CPLR 1021 DEFINES THE PROCEDURE FOR SUBSTITUTING A REPRESENTATIVE FOR A DECEASED PARTY; HERE THAT PROCEDURE WAS NOT FOLLOWED; THE JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE ORDER SUBSTITUTING THE EXECUTOR WAS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A RADIOLOGIST, DID NOT INDICATE FAMILIARITY WITH THE STANDARD OF CARE FOR ORTHOPEDIC SURGEONS, SURGEON-DEFENDANTS PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW NOT DEMONSTRATED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE PARTIES WERE DIVORCED IN COLORADO, THEY AND THEIR CHILDREN RESIDE IN NEW YORK; THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED COLORADO LAW IN DETERMINING FATHER’S SUPPORT OBLIGATION (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

BANK WAS UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING AND FAILED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS... SEALED LOCAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS PROPERLY UNSEALED FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS...