You are here: / / THE MERE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER IS NOT ENOUGH...

THE MERE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER IS NOT ENOUGH TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF ON A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PROPERLY DENIED BUT DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action in this ladder-fall case should not have been granted. Plaintiff testified the A-frame ladder, which he had used before, shook and leaned before he fell. He also testified he did not notice any defects in the ladder. The Second Department held that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied (but defendant’s motion should not have been granted):

“Under Labor Law § 240(1), owners and general contractors, and their agents, have a nondelegable duty to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites” … . “To prevail on a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, a plaintiff must establish that the statute was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries” … . The mere fact that a plaintiff fell from a ladder does not, in and of itself, establish that proper protection was not provided, and whether a particular safety device provided proper protection is generally a question of fact for a jury … . Here, the plaintiff’s own submissions demonstrated that there are triable issues of fact as to how this accident occurred and it cannot be concluded, as a matter of law, that the alleged failure to provide the plaintiff with proper protection proximately caused his injuries … . Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion without regard to the sufficiency of the opposing papers… .

In light of the inconsistencies as to how this accident occurred, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to grant that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. On this record, the defendants failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that the ladder provided proper protection, or that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . Yao Zong Wu v Zhen Jia Yang, 2018 NY Slip Op 03169, Second Dept 5-2-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (THE MERE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER IS NOT ENOUGH TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF ON A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PROPERLY DENIED BUT DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, THE MERE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER IS NOT ENOUGH TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF ON A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PROPERLY DENIED BUT DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Defect Properly Deemed Trivial as a Matter of Law
Trial Court Has the Discretion to Determine the Best Venue for Consolidated Actions—Here a County Other than the County Where the First Action Was Brought Was Properly Determined to Be the Most Appropriate Venue
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT IN THIS STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL COULD NOT TESTIFY THE STAIRWAY VIOLATED ANY STATUTE OR REGULATION, THE EXPERT COULD HAVE TESTIFIED THE SLIPPERY CONDITION VIOLATED A CUSTOM IN THE INDUSTRY AS REPRESENTED BY THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING MATERIALS STANDARDS; THE EXPERT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM TESTIFYING (SECOND DEPT).
UNDER THE 2022 FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT BANKS CAN NO LONGER STOP THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BY VOLUNTARILY DISCONTINUING A FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PETITION TO DEEM A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM TIMELY SERVED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE CITY’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE CROSSWALK DEFECT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE NATURE OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES TO JUSTIFY AWARDING HER SOLE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Entitled to Damages from the City—Plaintiff Had a “Special Relationship” with the City and Was Injured When a City Employee, Performing Ministerial Functions, Directed Plaintiff to Perform a Dangerous Task—“Special Relationship,” Which Gave Rise to a Duty Owed by the City to the Plaintiff, Defined
EXCESSIVE INTERFERENCE BY THE JUDGE DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL.

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 DEMONSTRATED HE PLED GUILTY WITHOUT BEING INFORMED HE MIGHT BE SUBJECT... NYS DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL (DHCR) ACTED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY...