You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SAFETY DEVICES FOR LIFTING HEAVY MOTOR WERE AVAILABLE,...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SAFETY DEVICES FOR LIFTING HEAVY MOTOR WERE AVAILABLE, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact whether safety devices were available precluded granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff was injured lifting a heavy motor onto a scissor lift. Defendant’s foreman testified he had never manually lifted a motor onto a scissors lift and safety devices for lifting the motor must have been available:

In support of the motion, plaintiffs submitted the deposition testimony of plaintiff set forth above, as well as that of his coworker and a foreman. Plaintiff’s coworker testified that he had performed work on 30 or 40 such doors and had manually lifted the motor onto a scissor lift every time. Conversely, the foreman, who was not on location on the date of the injury, testified that he had performed work on “over a thousand” such doors and had “never lifted a motor manually onto a scissor lift.” The foreman found it “hard to believe” that hoists, blocks, pulleys, ropes, or other safety devices were not available on site.

We conclude that plaintiffs failed to meet their initial burden on their motion inasmuch as their evidentiary submissions created issues of fact whether plaintiff’s “injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential” … . Smiley v Allgaier Constr. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 04130, Fourth Dept 6-8-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SAFETY DEVICES FOR LIFTING HEAVY MOTOR WERE AVAILABLE, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
Conversion Cause of Action Cannot Be Based Solely Upon Allegations of Breach of Contract
TRAFFIC STOP WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE DEFENDANT HAD COMMITTED A TRAFFIC VIOLATION (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE QUESTIONING OF DEFENDANT IN HIS BACKYARD AND AT THE HOSPITAL WAS INVESTIGATORY AND DID NOT REQUIRE THE MIRANDA WARNINGS; THERE WAS A DETAILED, FACT-SPECIFIC DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
A WITNESS WHO WOULD HAVE TESTIFIED THE COMPLAINANT IN THIS SEXUAL ABUSE PROSECUTION HAD OFFERED TO GIVE FALSE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE WITNESS’S BOYFRIEND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Ice and Snow Accumulation of Floor of Building Constituted Negligence as a Matter of Law 
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY VALIDATED 25 SIGNATURES ON THE DESIGNATING PETITION WHICH HAD BEEN INVALIDATED BY THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, THEREBY ALLOWING THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO RUN IN THE NOVEMBER ELECTIONS (FOURTH DEPT).
Evidence Seized In Violation of Probationer’s Constitutional Rights Should Not Have Been Used as the Basis for a Probation Revocation
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS TO PREVAILING DEFENDANTS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

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

BAD FAITH DISCLAIMER ACTION BROUGHT AFTER INJURED PLAINTIFFS WERE ASSIGNED THE... DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE...