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 EXISTS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE LAW DAY CLOSING WAS WILLFUL WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE REAL ESTATE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION SEEKING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ACTION TO RETAIN THE DOWN PAYMENT PROPERLY DENIED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SEEKING THE RETURN OF THE DOWN PAYMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SOCIAL SERVICES LAW ARTICLE 11 DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR THE INAPPROPRIATE USE OF PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS (SECOND DEPT).
A FINE NOT INCLUDED IN THE PLEA AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).
A DEFENSE WITNESS HELD OUT AS DISINTERESTED AND OBJECTIVE WAS IN FACT EMPLOYED BY THE DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE SCARANGELLA DEFENSE WHICH PLACES THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYING A SAFETY DEVICE ON THE BUYER RATHER THAN THE MANUFACTURER.
IT WAS FORSEEABLE THAT A LEAKY ROOF NEEDING REPAIR WOULD COLLAPSE WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON IT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Insurer Not Estopped from Disclaiming Coverage Four Years After the Claim—No Prejudice to Insured and Disclaimer Supported by Policy Exclusion
THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT IN DISCOVERY WERE PROTECTED BY THE COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE, AN EXCEPTION TO THE USUAL RULE RE: WAIVER OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE (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 © 2025 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...