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
MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY SERVE WITHIN THE 120 DAY WINDOW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR ALLOWING LATE SERVICE EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING BECAUSE DEFENSE COUNSEL HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED WITH A COPY OF THE SEARCH WARRANT AT THE TIME THE MOTION WAS MADE (SECOND DEPT).
A WALKWAY WET FROM RAIN WHICH WAS FALLING AT THE TIME OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS MOVED TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF, AN ATTORNEY AND PHYSICIAN REPRESENTING HIMSELF IN THIS FRAUD AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, ARGUING PLAINTIFF MAY BE CALLED AS A WITNESS; THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT SPECIFY HOW PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY WOULD BE NECESSARY TO THE DEFENSE; THE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Jury’s Conclusion the School Negligently Supervised Students But the Negligent Supervision Was Not the Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Injuries Was Supported by the Evidence/Inconsistent Verdict Issue Not Preserved Because Not Raised Before the Jury Was Discharged
Failure to Allege a Favorable Result Would Have Obtained “But For” the Attorney’s Alleged Malpractice Required Dismissal of the Complaint
IT WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF SIBLINGS TO REMAIN TOGETHER, CUSTODY OF BOTH CHILDREN SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO FATHER IN THIS MODIFICATION PROCEEDING.
T-Shirts With the Victim’s Photo Worn by Family Members During the Murder Trial Did Not Deprive Defendant of a Fair Trial

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...