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))

/by
You might also like
NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH WAS MISDIRECTED BECAUSE OF A MINOR MISNOMER ON THE MAILED ENVELOPE DEEMED TIMELY SERVED.
Defendant Demonstrated It Did Not Have Constructive Notice of Condition Which Caused the Fall—Law of Constructive Notice Explained Re: Recurring Conditions/Latent Defects
Custody Properly Awarded to Non-Parents—Criteria Explained
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT; DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE PERFORMED PROCEDURE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY, THEREBY NEGATING THE “LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT” CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A CITY EMT’S REFUSAL TO OFFER MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A RESTAURANT EMPLOYEE WHO HAD COLLAPSED WHILE THE EMT WAS IN THE RESTAURANT 2ND DEPT.
DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF THE FORMATION OF ICE IN THE PARKING LOT WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE THE ICE WAS A RECURRING CONDITION DEFENDANTS DID NOT NEED TO PRESENT PROOF THAT IT WAS NOT A RECURRING CONDITION, DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, THE BANK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE THE CREDIT CARD BILLING STATEMENTS AND THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CREDIT CARD AGREEMENT WERE MAILED TO THE DEFENDANT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE BREACH OF CONTRACT AND ACCOUNT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
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...