You are here: / / PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE DID NOT CHECK THE POSITION OR LOCKING MECHANISM...

PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE DID NOT CHECK THE POSITION OR LOCKING MECHANISM OF THE A-FRAME LADDER HE FELL FROM, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice well-reasoned dissent, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) action should not have been granted. Plaintiff was injured when he fell from the A-frame ladder. Plaintiff testified that he might not have checked the positioning of the ladder or the locking mechanism:

​

We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). “In order to establish his entitlement to judgment on liability as a matter of law, plaintiff was required to show that the statute was violated and the violation proximately caused his injury’ “… . Plaintiff did not know why the ladder wobbled or shifted, and he acknowledged that he might not have checked the positioning of the ladder or the locking mechanism, despite having been aware of the need to do so. We thus conclude that plaintiff failed to meet his initial burden on the motion. “[T]here is a plausible view of the evidence—enough to raise a fact question—that there was no statutory violation and that plaintiff’s own acts or omissions were the sole cause of the accident” … .

​

From the dissent: The fact that plaintiff could not identify why the ladder shifted does not undermine his entitlement to partial summary judgment because a plaintiff who falls from a ladder that “malfunction[s] for no apparent reason” is entitled to “a presumption that the ladder . . . was not good enough to afford proper protection” … . Although plaintiff testified at his deposition that he did not recall whether he checked the positioning of the ladder or checked that it was “locked into place,” he also testified that the ladder was upright and “fully open” near the middle of a small room, and we conclude that it would be unduly speculative for a jury to infer from plaintiff’s testimony that the sole proximate cause of the accident was his alleged failure to check its positioning or its locking mechanism … . Bonczar v American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00712, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE DID NOT CHECK THE POSITION OR LOCKING MECHANISM OF THE A-FRAME LADDER HE FELL FROM, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE DID NOT CHECK THE POSITION OR LOCKING MECHANISM OF THE A-FRAME LADDER HE FELL FROM, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
MOTHER’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; FAMILY COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).
AT THE TIME THE POLICE PARKED THE POLICE CAR BEHIND THE CAR IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER SUCH THAT THE DRIVER COULD NOT LEAVE THE AREA, THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT THE OCCUPANTS OF THE CAR HAD COMMITTED A CRIME; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT, FROM THE OUTSET, CLAIMED A MAN SHE HAD JUST MET AT A BAR WAS DRIVING HER CAR WHEN IT WENT OFF THE ROAD AND THEN FLED THE SCENE; THE DWI CONVICTIONS WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
SUPPORT MAGISTRATE DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO REDUCE FATHER’S CHILD SUPPORT BY DISTRIBUTING A TAX REFUND (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS LIEN LAW DISPUTE OVER PAYMENT PURSUANT TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE RESTORATION OF IMPROPERLY DIVERTED TRUST ASSETS WITH NON-TRUST ASSETS LIMITED DEFENDANTS’ DAMAGES (FOURTH DEPT).
ATTEMPTED SECOND DEGREE MURDER COUNT MUST BE DISMISSED AS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF ATTEMPTED FIRST DEGREE MURDER (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF LAW FIRM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO REPRESENT ITSELF IN ITS SUIT FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AGAINST A FORMER CLIENT; ALTHOUGH THE ATTORNEYS DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH THE FORMER CLIENT WERE DISQUALIFIED, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE TESTIMONY OF THE DISQUALIFIED ATTORNEYS WOULD PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF LAW FIRM SUCH THAT DISQUALICATION OF THE ENTIRE FIRM WAS WARRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
ROBBERY WAS THE FELONY UPON WHICH THE FELONY ASSAULT WAS PREDICATED; THEREFORE THE SENTENCES FOR ASSAULT FIRST AND ROBBERY FIRST MUST RUN CONCURRENTLY (FOURTH 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

THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED... RELEASE SIGNED BY ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES OF THE WILL, RELEASING THE EXECUTOR...