You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT...
,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE CLIMBED THE LADDER FROM WHICH HE FELL, THUS PLACING THE INCIDENT OUTSIDE THE PROTECTION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that there was a question of fact whether plaintiff was acting within the scope of his employment when he climbed a ladder to troubleshoot a cable installation problem:

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover for personal injuries he allegedly sustained when he fell from a utility pole while attempting to troubleshoot a cable installation activation that did not work. However, his supervisor submitted an affidavit asserting, inter alia, that plaintiff’s sole job functions were as a manager, providing administrative services and training, assessing materials and equipment needed for a job, and occasionally following up with an activation from ground level only, but that in no event were his duties to entail climbing any poles.

Supreme Court correctly determined that issues of fact exist as to whether the aerial work plaintiff contends he was performing when he fell was outside the scope of his employment and thus outside the protection of Labor Law § 240(1) … . McCue v Cablevision Sys. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 02902, First Dept 4-26-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE CLIMBED THE LADDER FROM WHICH HE FELL, THUS PLACING THE INCIDENT OUTSIDE THE PROTECTION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE CLIMBED THE LADDER FROM WHICH HE FELL, THUS PLACING THE INCIDENT OUTSIDE THE PROTECTION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
RES IPSA LOQUITUR NEEDN’T BE ALLEGED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM OR THE COMPLAINT BECAUSE IT IS NOT A THEORY OF LIABILITY, IT IS AN EVIDENTIARY RULE; NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION CAN BE INFERRED UNDER THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONER’S MOTION TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE CITY HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING PETITIONER’S INJURIES, THE FACTS SUPPORTING THE CITY’S NEGLIGENCE COULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED DURING THE INVESTIGATION WITH A MODICUM OF EFFORT, CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE RELATING TO THE DELAY, PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY WAS NOT FATAL (FIRST DEPT).
42 USC 1983 ACTIONS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS DO NOT RELATE BACK TO THE ACTION AGAINST THE CITY, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING NAMED OFFICERS PROPERLY DENIED.
PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION AGAINST ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, LABOR LAW 240(1) INAPPLICABLE TO ELEVATOR ACCIDENT.
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). ​
PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE WAS STANDING AT THE TOP OF AN UNSECURED A-FRAME LADDER WHEN IT MOVED AND HE FELL; THE FACT THAT THERE WERE NO WITNESSES DID NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE PRIVILEGE AFFORDED ATTORNEYS UNDER THE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW RE: ALLEGEDLY DEFAMATORY CLAIMS INCLUDED IN A COMPLAINT (WITH ONE EXCEPTION NOT APPLICABLE HERE) IS ABSOLUTE, EVEN IN THE FACE OF ALLEGATIONS OF MALICE AND BAD FAITH (FIRST DEPT).
Policy Taken Out to Cover Original One Story Building Did Not Cover Accident on Additional Floors Under Construction

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

THE MANNER IN WHICH A PRISON BODY CAVITY SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED DEEMED UNREASONABLE... TESTIMONY THERE HAD BEEN NO COMPLAINTS ABOUT A HOLE ON THE DEFENDANT CEMETERY...