You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS PROVIDED WITH A SAFETY LINE AND A HARNESS...

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS PROVIDED WITH A SAFETY LINE AND A HARNESS WHICH HE WAS NOT USING WHEN HE FELL THROUGH A SKYLIGHT, FAILURE TO USE THE SAFETY LINE WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff’s decedent was provided with a harness and told to remain tied off at all times. Plaintiff fell through an opening in the roof when he was not tied off:

Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, a fall through an unguarded opening in the floor of a construction site constitutes a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) only where a safety device adequate to prevent such a fall was not provided … .. A safety line and harness may be an adequate safety device for a person working over an open area or near an elevated edge … .

Defendants established prima facie that plaintiff’s decedent was the sole proximate cause of his accident with evidence that a harness and safety rope system was in place on the roof, that the decedent had been instructed to remain tied off at all times while on the roof, and that he could not have reached the skylight through which he fell if he had remained tied off. Guaman v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 01025, First Dept 2-13-15

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS PROVIDED WITH A SAFETY LINE AND A HARNESS WHICH HE WAS NOT USING WHEN HE FELL THROUGH A SKYLIGHT, FAILURE TO USE THE SAFETY LINE WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS PROVIDED WITH A SAFETY LINE AND A HARNESS WHICH HE WAS NOT USING WHEN HE FELL THROUGH A SKYLIGHT, FAILURE TO USE THE SAFETY LINE WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/SAFETY LINE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS PROVIDED WITH A SAFETY LINE AND A HARNESS WHICH HE WAS NOT USING WHEN HE FELL THROUGH A SKYLIGHT, FAILURE TO USE THE SAFETY LINE WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THAT THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON AFTER A STREET STOP WAS SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT).
LOADING LADDERS ONTO A TRUCK DID NOT CREATE AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY.
CITY AGENCY FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE REPORT SOUGHT BY PETITIONERS WAS SUBJECT TO THE INTRA-AGENCY EXEMPTION FROM THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) BECAUSE THE AGENCY DID NOT PRESENT PROOF THE PREPARER OF THE REPORT WAS RETAINED BY THE AGENCY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AS MANDATED BY A 2017 AMENDMENT TO FOIL (FIRST DEPT).
Prejudice Which Would Preclude Amendment of an Answer Must Stem from a Right Lost in the Interim Between the Original Answer and the Application to Amend
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ASBESTOS-INJURY CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PROPER BURDEN OF PROOF EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
BOARD OF RESIDENTIAL COOPERATIVE CORPORATION UNREASONABLY WITHHELD CONSENT TO TRANSFER SHARES AND PROPRIETARY LEASE TO TWO SONS OF THE DECEASED APARTMENT RESIDENTS.
DEFENDANT WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE NEGLIGENT OR TO HAVE EXERCISED SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER THE INJURY-PRODUCING WORK; SCHEDULING AND COORDINATING WORK DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SUPERVISON AND CONTROL; THE COMMON-LAW INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION CLAIMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST 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

ALL RISK ARTWORK INSURANCE DID NOT COVER DEFECTIVE TITLE, ALLEGATIONS DID NOT... EVIDENCE OF DEBRIS ON FLOOR WAS SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER...