You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SAFETY DEVICE WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 240...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SAFETY DEVICE WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A HARD HAT THAT COULD BE WORN WITH A WELDING SHIELD WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether a safety device was necessary in this falling object case (Labor Law 240 (1)), and there was a question of fact whether plaintiff should have been supplied with a hard hat that could be worn with a welding shield (Labor Law 241 (6)). Plaintiff had used a scissors lift to raise a part up 16 feet to where it was welded just enough to hold it in place so further welding could be done (tack welds). The scissors lift was lowered, the tack welds broke and the part fell and struck plaintiff:

… [N]either the plaintiffs nor the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. The parties’ submissions raised triable issues of fact as to whether the defendants were obligated to provide appropriate safety devices of the kind enumerated in Labor Law § 240(1) to secure the flange and whether the flange fell due to the absence or inadequacy of an enumerated safety device… . … [A]safety manager … testified … that “[d]epending on . . . what the operation is,” “[s]lings, chokers [can be] used to . . . hold [a flange] in place” until it is permanently welded to the pipe. While it is true that no safety device such as a sling was provided, the injured plaintiff testified at his deposition that two tack welds should have been sufficient to secure the flange. Significantly, the plaintiffs’ expert … opined that “the two tack welds should have been sufficient to hold the flange until the job was completed, unless the tack welds were defective.” Under these circumstances, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether “[t]his was . . . a situation where a hoisting or securing device of the kind enumerated in [Labor Law § 240(1)] would have been necessary or even expected” … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the tack welds do not constitute a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Carlton v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03500, Second Dept 5-16-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SAFETY DEVICE WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A HARD HAT THAT COULD BE WORN WITH A WELDING SHIELD WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) (SECOND DEPT))/FALLING OBJECTS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SAFETY DEVICE WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A HARD HAT THAT COULD BE WORN WITH A WELDING SHIELD WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Odor of Marihuana Provided Probable Cause to Search Defendant’s Car and Person
THE DEFENDANT’S AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” WHICH UTTERLY REFUTED THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT; EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT MIGHT WIN AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE, THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR DISMSSAL ARE DIFFERENT AND WERE NOT MET (SECOND DEPT).
Review Criteria for Actions by Zoning Boards of Appeal
Petitioner Entitled to Homestead Exemption During Period Prior to the Contract of Sale for Her Home
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF THE WEATHER AT THE TIME OF THE ICE SLIP AND FALL PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE STORM-IN-PROGRESS RULE; IN ADDITION, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE ICE WAS THERE FOR SOME TIME BEFORE THE FALL AND DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY LACKED ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF IT; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE LEASE WAS ENTERED INTO BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (LLC) THE OWNERS OF THE LLC SIGNED A PARAGRAPH AGREEING TO GUARANTEE THE PAYMENT OF THE RENT; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AGAINST THE INDIVIDUAL OWNERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT CONTROL TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFAMATION SUIT BY PLAINTIFF MARINA OWNER AGAINST AN ENVRONMENTAL ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION AND A PUBLISHER WAS A STRATEGIC LAWSUIT AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (SLAPP); DEFENDANT WAS ABLE TO SHOW ONE PUBLISHED STATEMENT WAS FALSE; THEREFORE THE ACTION CAN PROCEED WITH RESPECT TO THAT ONE STATEMENT (SECOND 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

TENANT’S INSURANCE POLICY NAMED THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING AS AN ADDITIONAL... GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS OIL-CONTAMINATION-REMEDIATION...