You are here: / / 8 TO 12 INCH HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL NOT ACTIONABLE, LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE...

8 TO 12 INCH HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL NOT ACTIONABLE, LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been dismissed. Plaintiff was injured when a cart he was moving slipped off a makeshift ramp. The height differential was 8 to 12 inches, which did not present an actionable elevation-related risk:

Plaintiff was allegedly injured in the course of rolling a four-wheeled cart filled with about 100 to 200 pounds of materials over an unsecured, makeshift plywood ramp which bridged an approximately five- or six-inch gap between a truck bed to a loading dock, when the ramp slipped out of place and landed on the truck bed, and the cart descended, pulling on plaintiff’s arms and causing injuries. Plaintiff admitted that the vertical distance from the surface of the truck bed to the surface of the dock was about 8 to 12 inches, which under the circumstances, does not constitute a physically significant elevation differential covered by Labor Law § 240(1) … . Plaintiff’s injury was not proximately caused by a failure to protect him from any elevation-related risks posed by the distance of almost four feet from the floor to the surface of the dock, since plaintiff remained on the dock while the cart became wedged in the gap between the truck bed and the dock, and there is no evidence that the gap was large enough to pose a significant risk of any hazardous descent to the floor. Sawczyszyn v New York Univ., 2018 NY Slip Op 01120, First Dept 2-15-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (8 TO 12 INCH HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL NOT ACTIONABLE, LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/ELEVATION-RELATED RISK (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, 8 TO 12 INCH HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL NOT ACTIONABLE, LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY DEMONSTRATED THE WITNESS’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS CONFIRMATORY, HEARSAY IS ADMISSIBLE AT A RODRIGUEZ HEARING (FIRST DEPT).
INABILITY TO IMPOSE THE PROMISED SENTENCE REQUIRED THAT DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA BE VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT DETERMINE A SUPPRESSION MOTION BASED ON TRIAL EVIDENCE; THE TRIAL EVIDENCE REVEALED THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT MAY HAVE BEEN UNLAWFUL; BASED UPON THE LIMITED INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO DEFENDANT WHEN THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS MADE, THE ALLEGATION THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE PERMISSION TO ENTER WAS ENOUGH TO WARRANT A PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING; MATTER REMITTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE FACT THAT A (NON-DEFECTIVE) A-FRAME LADDER FELL OVER WHILE PLAINTIFF HELD ON TO IT AFTER PLAINTIFF WAS JOLTED WITH ELECTRICITY JUSTIFIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.
THE IDENTITIES OF THE SUBJECTS OF TWO SCHOLARLY ARTICLES LINKING TALCUM-POWDER PRODUCTS WITH MESOTHELIOMA SHOULD BE RELEASED; THE INFORMATION IS NOT PROTECTED BY HIPAA OR THE FEDERAL COMMON RULE; PRODUCTION OF THE INFORMATION WOULD NOT BE UNDULY BURDENSOME AND WOULD NOT DETER FUTURE RESEARCH (FIRST DEPT).
Even Though Length of Merging Lane Was a Factor in Accident, It Was Not the Proximate Cause of the Accident
PLAINTIFF’S BREACH-OF-AN-EMPLOYMENT-CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, DESPITE THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT NEVER SIGNED IT (FIRST DEPT).
THE EXAMINATION UNDER OATH (EUO) WAS SCHEDULED BEFORE THE INSURER RECEIVED A CLAIM FORM; THEREFORE THE INSURER DID NOT HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 TO BE ENTITLED TO A DEFAULT DECLARATORY JUDGMENT; THE UNDERLYING TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN STAGED AND CLAIMANT FAILED TO APPEAR AT SCHEDULED EOU’S (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

DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SORA HEARING, NEW HEARING... ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S...