You are here: / / ARBITRATOR’S RULING WAS IRRATIONAL AND VIOLATED CPLR 1209 IN THIS...

ARBITRATOR’S RULING WAS IRRATIONAL AND VIOLATED CPLR 1209 IN THIS NO-FAULT INSURANCE ACTION, HEALTH CARE PROVIDER, AS AN ASSIGNEE, WAS ENTITLED TO ARBITRATE ITS CLAIM FOR CARE PROVIDED TO THE INJURED INFANT (SECOND DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been dismissed. Plaintiff, while carrying a heavy pipe on a ramp, lost his balance and was struck by the pipe:

Plaintiff’s testimony established that he was not exposed to the type of elevation-related hazard contemplated by the statute. The height differential of 6 to 10 inches mediated by the ramp did not constitute a physically significant elevation differential covered by the statute … . Also, as the ramp was serving as a passageway, as opposed to the “functional equivalent” of a safety device enumerated under the statute, it did not fall within the purview of the statute … . Further, the impetus for the pipe’s descent was plaintiff’s loss of balance, rather than the direct consequence of the force of gravity … . Jackson v Hunter Roberts Constr. Group, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03805, First Dept 5-29-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF LOST HIS BALANCE CARRYING A PIPE ON A RAMP, INCIDENT NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
Acknowledgment of Debt in Bankruptcy Proceeding Restarted Statute of Limitations 
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER ZIP LINE WAS DEFECTIVE AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN OF THE RISKS OF USING THE ZIP LINE.
COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN ATTORNEYS IN A LAW FIRM AND THE FIRM’S IN HOUSE COUNSEL CONCERNING ETHICAL ISSUES IN A FORMER CLIENT’S CASE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE IN THE FORMER CLIENT’S MALPRACTICE ACTION.
PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGEDLY INCONSISTENT ACCOUNTS OF THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT.
Plaintiffs Not Entitled to Attorneys Fees in Shareholder Derivative Action Because They Did Not Go to the Board Before Going to Court
THE PROOF WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT). ​
Late Notice of Claim Should Not Have Been Deemed Timely (Sua Sponte, Nunc Pro Tunc)—the 90 Days Started Running When Plaintiff’s Asthma Symptoms Worsened, Not When a Doctor Connected the Symptoms to Mold in the Apartment—the Plaintiff Did Not Make a Motion for Permission to File a Late Notice of Claim
ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE INTERNAL RULES WHICH IMPOSED A HIGHER STANDARD OF CARE THAN REQUIRED BY THE COMMON LAW WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR. 

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

COURT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE FUTURE EARNING CAPACITY OF THE... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WHICH COULD STOP WORK FOR UNSAFE PRACTICES...