You are here: / / PLAINTIFF, WHO TRIPPED ON AN EXTENSION CORD AND FELL DOWN A STAIRWELL,...

PLAINTIFF, WHO TRIPPED ON AN EXTENSION CORD AND FELL DOWN A STAIRWELL, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. He was working in a stairwell and tripped over an extension cord:

Because the stairway was an elevated surface on which plaintiff was required to work, and also the sole means of access to his work area, it constituted a safety device within the meaning of the statute … , as well as an elevated work platform that required provision of an adequate safety device … . Under either theory, it is clear that plaintiff’s fall was the direct result of absence of an adequate safety device, and thus, plaintiffs are entitled to partial summary judgment on the section 240(1) cause of action. That plaintiff tripped on an extension cord does not take the case out of the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1)… , and the fact that the staircase from which plaintiff fell was a permanent structure of the building does not remove this case from the coverage of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Conlon v Carnegie Hall Socy., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 02268, First Dept 3-29-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF, WHO TRIPPED ON AN EXTENSION CORD AND FELL DOWN A STAIRWELL, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT))/STAIRS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF, WHO TRIPPED ON AN EXTENSION CORD AND FELL DOWN A STAIRWELL, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
Trial Judge’s Failure to Conduct an Inquiry Concerning a Juror’s Conduct During the Trial Required Reversal
THE DEFENDANT WHICH RENTED OUT THE AERIAL LIFT WHICH MALFUNCTIONED WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR AND EXERCISED NO CONTROL OVER THE WORK, THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION, HOWEVER, PROPERLY SURVIVED (FIRST DEPT).
Malpractice Cause of Action Stated Against an Attorney Who Died Just Before the Statute of Limitations on Plaintiffs’ Action Ran Out
BUILDING OWNER LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) FOR INJURY CAUSED BY FALLING ELEVATOR.
POLICE DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION DEFENDANT WAS ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME OF THE STOP AND PURSUIT; THEREFORE THE WEAPON DISCARDED BY DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO DISMISS ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS WAS NOT TIMELY, THE ASSERTION OF THE DEFENSE IN THE REPLY TO THE COUNTERCLAIM WAS TIMELY; THE DEFENSE CAN BE RAISED IN A SUBSEQUENT SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR THE NO-FAULT EXAMINATION UNDER OATH (EUO) REQUESTED BY THE INSURER JUSTIFIED THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S CLAIMS FOR BENEFITS (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S TRANSLATED AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY THE TRANSLATOR’S AFFIDAVIT AND WAS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE; THE ROADWAY WHERE THE COLLISION OCCURRED WAS NOT DIVIDED INTO TWO OR MORE CLEARLY MARKED LANES; THEREFORE THE “UNSAFE LANE CHANGE” STATUTE (VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1128(A)) DID NOT APPLY (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

THIRD DEPT OFFERS AN IN DEPTH EXPLANATION OF THE SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE... CLAIMANT, WHO DISTRIBUTED BAKED GOODS UNDER A DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT, WAS AN...