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, MAKESHIFT LADDER SLID OUT FROM UNDER HIM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff alleged a makeshift ladder slid out from under him. A co-worker’s statement that plaintiff may have missed the last step did not refute plaintiff’s statement that the ladder slid out from under him:

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim with his testimony that the makeshift ladder on which he was descending after detaching a crane cable from the top of an eight-foot C-box slid out from under him … .

In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The affidavit of plaintiff’s coworker, who stated that “[he] observed [plaintiff] fall from the ladder after he appeared to have missed’ the last step,” does not raise a triable issue as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident, as it does not refute plaintiff’s assertion that the ladder slid out from beneath him … . Nolan v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2018 NY Slip Op 04293, First Dept 6-12-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, MAKESHIFT LADDER SLID OUT FROM UNDER HIM (FIRST DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, MAKESHIFT LADDER SLID OUT FROM UNDER HIM (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
THE FINDING THAT PETITIONER’S CHILD WAS IN IMMINENT DANGER OF ABUSE, BASED SOLELY UPON A SHOPLIFTING INCIDENT, WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, PETITIONER’S NAME SHOULD NOT BE ON A LIST WHICH WILL MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO CONTINUE HER CAREER IN CHILD CARE.
THE LANDOWNER AND THE TENANT TAXI COMPANY HAD THE SAME PRINCIPAL, A HOSE WAS USED BY INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS TO WASH THE TAXIS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED ON THE WATER FROM THE HOSE WHICH FROZE, THE LANDOWNER DID NOT ESTABLISH IT WAS AN OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD, THE LANDOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT GAVE TWO STATEMENTS, ONE IN THE MORNING TO THE POLICE, ONE IN THE AFTERNOON TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY; THE FIRST STATEMENT WAS INDUCED BY MISINFORMATION ABOUT WHETHER THE STATEMENT COULD BE USED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT AND WAS SUPPRESSED BY THE MOTION COURT; THE SECOND STATEMENT, AND THE KNIFE AND DNA RECOVERED BASED UPON THE SECOND STATEMENT, SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE OFFICER WHO SEARCHED DEFENDANT’S PERSON INTENDED TO ARREST THE DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH; THEREFORE THE SEARCH WAS NOT A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST AND THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST DEPT).
THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION WAS BASED UPON A LEASE ENTERED BY A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY THE ASSETS OF WHICH WERE PURCHASED BY THE TWO DEFENDANT LIMITED LIABILTY COMPANIES; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE THEORY THAT THE DEFENDANTS CONSTITUTED A “MERE CONTINUATION” OF THE ORIGINAL LESSEE’S BUSINESS; THERE WAS A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
PRO SE PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS ORDER OF PROTECTION PROCEEDING.
PURCHASER OF UNSOLD SHARES IN A COOPERATIVE BOUND BY A STIPULATION TO WHICH PURCHASER WAS NOT A PARTY; STIPULATION RESTRICTED THE NUMBER OF BOARD MEMBERS WHO COULD BE ELECTED BY HOLDERS OF UNSOLD SHARES.
DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE COURT DURING THE PRE-TRIAL SUPPRESSION HEARING THAT DEFENDANT WAS NOT CONTESTING HIS CONSENT TO THE INTOXILYZER BREATH TEST; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPT TO RAISE THAT SAME SUPPRESSION ISSUE DURING TRIAL; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL CONTRACTOR LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) FOR... BUS DRIVER REACTED TO AN EMERGENCY, NOT LIABLE FOR SUDDENLY APPLYING THE BRAKES...