You are here: / / PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF...
,

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, UNTIMELY CROSS MOTION CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY TO THE EXTENT THE ISSUES RAISED ARE THE SAME AS THE ISSUES RAISED IN PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff was standing on a scaffold when a masonry stone fell on the scaffold and the planks collapsed. The court noted that defendants’ untimely cross motion for summary judgment was properly considered only to the extent the issues were identical to the issues raised in plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment:

This Court may consider the merits of defendants’ untimely cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint to the extent it sought dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, because it is based on the same issues raised in plaintiff’s motion … However, the remainder of the motion, seeking dismissal of Labor Law § 241(6), Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence claims cannot be considered because it does not address issues nearly identical to those raised in the timely motion and defendants did not demonstrate good cause for the delay … .

Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim. He established, prima facie, that he was engaged in an activity falling within the statute, and that defendants failed to provide him proper safety equipment, either in the form of a scaffold that could withstand the force of a falling masonry stone … , or any other appropriate safety device. Plaintiff further demonstrated that defendants’ failure to provide an appropriate safety device was the proximate cause of the accident, and defendants have failed to raise an issue of fact. Jarama v 902 Liberty Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03897, First Dept 5-31-18

​LABOR LAW -CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, UNTIMELY CROSS MOTION CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY TO THE EXTENT THE ISSUES RAISED ARE THE SAME AS THE ISSUES RAISED IN PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUMMARY JUDGMENT, UNTIMELY CROSS MOTION CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY TO THE EXTENT THE ISSUES RAISED ARE THE SAME AS THE ISSUES RAISED IN PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT ( UNTIMELY CROSS MOTION CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY TO THE EXTENT THE ISSUES RAISED ARE THE SAME AS THE ISSUES RAISED IN PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
THE SUPPRESSION HEARING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REOPENED; EVIDENCE OF UNCHARGED DRUG TRAFFICKING AS BACKGROUND FOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED (FIRST DEPT).
Property Owner Responsible for Defect in Sidewalk that Did Not Directly “Abut” Owner’s Property (Liability Based On New York City Ordinance)
THERE WAS NO RECORD DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INFORMED OF THE JURY NOTE AND NO RECORD THE JUDGE RESPONDED TO THE NOTE, A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR; ALTHOUGH THE NOTE REFERRED ONLY TO ONE COUNT, THE THREE COUNTS WERE FACTUALLY CONNECTED REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFFS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT (1) WHETHER THE POLICE ACTED IN RECKLESS DISREGARD OF THE SAFETY OF OTHERS DURING A HIGH-SPEED CHASE AND IN FAILING TO NOTIFY THE DISPATCHER OF THE CHASE, AND (2) WHETHER THE CHASE WAS A PROXIMATE OR CONCURRENT CAUSE OF PLAINTFFS’ ACCIDENT (THERE WAS NO CONTACT WITH EITHER VEHICLE INVOLVED IN THE CHASE) (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S REPEATED REQUESTS TO REPRESENT HIMSELF WERE NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED BY THE THREE JUDGES TO WHOM THE REQUESTS WERE MADE; CONVICTION REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT). ​
PEDESTRIAN IN A CROSSWALK STRUCK FROM BEHIND IS NOT COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT AS A MATTER OF LAW.
THE ELECTRONIC LEGAL RESEARCH (LEXISNEXIS) CONTRACT SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY WAS NOT PROCEDURALLY OR SUBSTANTIVELY UNCONSCIONABLE (FIRST DEPT).
FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING UNSUPERVISED VISITATION WITH CHILDREN WHO HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE PARENTS’ CARE, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF A CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES SINCE THE DENIAL OF THE PARENTS’ APPLICATION TO HAVE THE CHILDREN RETURNED TO THEM (FIRST 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION,... UNDER PENNSYLVANIA LAW PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY ON A TRAMPOLINE...