You are here: / / PROPERTY OWNER’S LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) FOR PLAINTIFF’S...

PROPERTY OWNER’S LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD THAT DID NOT HAVE SAFETY RAILINGS IS BASED UPON ITS STATUS AS AN OWNER, NOT NEGLIGENCE, THEREFORE PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION FROM GENERAL CONTRACTOR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, who fell from a scaffold that did not have a safety railing,  was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. The property owner was entitled to summary judgment against the general contractor on its indemnification action because the property owner was not negligent:

Labor Law § 240(1) requires property owners and contractors to furnish, or cause to be furnished, safety devices, such as scaffolds, which are “so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection” to workers. “To establish liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must demonstrate a violation of the statute and that such violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries”… . Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that he was injured when he fell from a scaffold that lacked safety rails on the sides, and that he was not provided with a safety device to prevent him from falling … . In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Additionally, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s (property owner’s) motion for summary judgment on the third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification against the general contractor. The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting a copy of a “Release and Hold Harmless Agreement,” together with evidence showing that it was free from any negligence in connection with the accident … . … Here, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff under Labor Law § 240(1) based solely upon its status as the owner of the premises. There is no evidence that the defendant was negligent, or that it directed, controlled, or supervised the manner in which the plaintiff performed his work… . Marulanda v Vance Assoc., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 02452, Second Dept 4-11-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PROPERTY OWNER’S LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD THAT DID NOT HAVE SAFETY RAILINGS IS BASED UPON ITS STATUS AS AN OWNER, NOT NEGLIGENCE, THEREFORE PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION FROM GENERAL CONTRACTOR (SECOND DEPT))/SCAFFOLDS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PROPERTY OWNER’S LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD THAT DID NOT HAVE SAFETY RAILINGS IS BASED UPON ITS STATUS AS AN OWNER, NOT NEGLIGENCE, THEREFORE PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION FROM GENERAL CONTRACTOR (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
In a Sexual Abuse Proceeding—Effects of Victim’s Exercise of Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and Exclusion of Appellant During Testimony of Victim Explained
Family Offense Must Be Established by Fair Preponderance
SIDEWALK DAMAGE CAUSED BY TREE ROOTS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AFFIRMATIVE NEGLIGENCE BY THE CITY; THEREFORE THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DESPITE THE ALLEGATION THAT THE DRIVER HAD LOGGED OFF THE UBER APP PRIOR TO THE PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT, QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE VICARIOUS LIABILITY THEORY; THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD’S FINDING THAT THE DRIVER WAS EMPLOYED BY UBER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PRECLUSIVE EFFECT; ISSUE NOT RAISED BELOW PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE PARTY WHO WAS AWARDED COSTS ON APPEAL WAS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF THE COST OF PROCURING THE TRANSCRIPTS FOR THE RECORD ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
Board of Commissioner’s Rejection of Hearing Officer’s Award of Supplemental Benefits Was Supported by Substantial Evidence—“Substantial Evidence” Defined and Review Criteria Explained
CONVICTIONS OF INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
Providing a False Name During Booking Did Not Trigger the Need for a Miranda Warning

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

MOTHER’S IMMIGRATION STATUS DID NOT AFFECT HER STATUS AS A DOMICILIARY... A POLICE OFFICER’S OR POLICE DEPARTMENT’S KNOWLEDGE OF AN ACCIDENT...