You are here: / / SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION...

SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON A FALL FROM AN UNSECURED LADDER, IT DID NOT MATTER WHETHER PLAINTIFF LOST HIS BALANCE BEFORE OF AFTER THE LADDER WOBBLED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly granted. The complaint alleged the unsecured ladder wobbled while plaintiff was attempting to install steel wall panels. The court offered a particularly clear explanation of liability stemming from the use of unsecured ladders:

…[P]laintiff … was injured when he fell from an unsecured ladder while installing steel wall panels in the lobby of a building … . “It is well settled that failure to properly secure a ladder to insure that it remains steady and erect while being used, constitutes a violation of Labor Law § 240(1)” … . It is irrelevant whether plaintiff initially lost his balance before or after the ladder wobbled because it is uncontested that the precipitating cause of both was that the suction cup that he had affixed to the panel and gripped to pull the panel into place came loose … . Under either scenario, the ladder failed to remain steady under plaintiff’s weight as he performed his work. Furthermore, even if plaintiff gripped the suction cup incorrectly, causing it to come loose, any such misuse of the suction cup was not the sole proximate cause of the accident where the unsecured ladder moved … . Plywacz v 85 Broad St. LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 01883, First Dept 3-20-18

LABOR LAW -CONSTRUCTION LAW (SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON A FALL FROM AN UNSECURED LADDER, IT DID NOT MATTER WHETHER PLAINTIFF LOST HIS BALANCE BEFORE OF AFTER THE LADDER WOBBLED (FIRST DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON A FALL FROM AN UNSECURED LADDER, IT DID NOT MATTER WHETHER PLAINTIFF LOST HIS BALANCE BEFORE OF AFTER THE LADDER WOBBLED (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE ALLOWED PLAINTIFF TO SERVE A SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON THE DRIVER’S EMPLOYER IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE PURSUANT TO THE RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR THEORY OF LIABILITY, AFTER THE ACTION WAS STARTED PLAINTIFF LEARNED THAT THE DRIVER OF THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS A PASSENGER WAS PAID BY THE EMPLOYER TO TRANSPORT THE OTHER EMPLOYEES IN THE CAR TO WORK (FIRST DEPT).
THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT WAS MADE BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RAN, BUT THE SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMONS WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE MOTION PAPERS, THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS NOT TOLLED BY THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT).
CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PLAINTIFF’S QUANTUM MERUIT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS, OTHER ASPECTS WERE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS.
UNSECURED, DAMAGED LADDER WOBBLED AND PLAINTIFF FELL, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT MANUFACTURED VALVES CONTAINING ASBESTOS; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT HAD A SMALL OFFICE IN NYC THE VALVES WERE MANUFACTURED AND SOLD IN CONNECTICUT, WHERE PLAINTIFF LIVED AND WORKED; THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEW YORK AND PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS WAS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR NEW YORK JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED DECEDENT, WHO WAS SUFFERING SHORTNESS OF BREATH, SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED AN ADVANCE LIFE SUPPORT AMBULANCE; THE COMPLAINT SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, AND WAS TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CERTIFIED PLAINTIFFS AS A CLASS BASED ON THE FIVE MANDATORY FACTORS IN CPLR SECTIONS 901 AND 902; THE CLASS DEFINITION DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN IMPERMISSIBLE “FAIL SAFE” CLASS UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS WET-FLOOR SLIP AND FALL CASE; THEY FAILED TO PROVE THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS, THEY FAILED TO PROVE THEY TOOK REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS TO REMEDY THE WET FLOOR, AND THEY FAILED TO PROVE THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (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

UNDER CAYMAN ISLANDS LAW, THE SHAREHOLDER’S DERIVATIVE CAUSES OF ACTION... NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION DID NOT INCLUDE THE RELIEF SOUGHT OR THE GROUNDS FOR...