You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1)...

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD AND HAD NOT TIED OFF HIS LANYARD (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined that defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) should not have been granted. There were questions of fact whether plaintiff’s fall could have been prevented by an available safety device. Plainitiff was not tied off, but there was testimony he couldn’t have accomplished the work if he were tied off with a six foot lanyard. Although a 25 foot lanyard was available, plaintiff fell 25 to 30 feet and the retractable lanyard may not have prevented the injury:

“A violation occurs where a scaffold or elevated platform is inadequate in and of itself to protect workers against the elevation-related hazards encountered while assembling or dismantling that device, and it is the only safety device supplied or any additional safety device is also inadequate” … . …

We conclude that defendants’ own submissions raised triable issues of fact with respect to the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. In support of their contentions that plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries, defendants submitted plaintiff’s deposition testimony in which he testified that he chose to unhook his safety lanyard and detach the bridge scaffolding sheet without the benefit of the lanyard or other safety device. The six-foot lanyard given to him was not an adequate safety device, however, because plaintiff also testified that it was too short to permit plaintiff to reach the final clip anchoring the bridge scaffolding sheet, even if he had moved the fall arrest system cable to a location closer to that clip. Furthermore, although defendants submitted evidence that other safety devices were generally available on the work site, they failed to establish as a matter of law that an adequate safety device was present that would have prevented plaintiff “from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to . . . [his] person” … . For example, defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that a 20- or 25-foot lanyard, which appears to have been the next length available on the work site, would have prevented plaintiff’s fall by virtue of the fact that it was retractable. It therefore cannot be concluded on this record that plaintiff’s use of that alternative lanyard would have made any substantial difference in plaintiff’s injuries … . Martin v Niagara Falls Bridge Commn., 2018 NY Slip Op 04452, Fourth Dept 6-15-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD AND HAD NOT TIED OFF HIS LANYARD (FOURTH DEPT))/SCAFFOLDS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD AND HAD NOT TIED OFF HIS LANYARD (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
HERE PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THEY WERE SEXUALLY ABUSED DECADES AGO IN MASSACHUSETTS AND SUED UNDER THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT WHICH SERVES TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; ORDINARILY THE BORROWING STATUTE APPLIES TO OUT-OF-STATE TORTS REQUIRING THE ACTION TO BE TIMELY UNDER BOTH NEW YORK AND THE FOREIGN STATE’S LAWS; HERE THE “RESIDENT EXCEPTION” APPLIED BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF’S WERE NEW YORK RESIDENTS AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED ABUSE; THEREFORE THE ACTION NEED ONLY BE TIMELY UNDER NEW YORK’S CHILD VICTIMS ACT (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS PROVED THE “ENSUING LOSS” EXCEPTION TO THE “FAULTY WORKMANSHIP” EXCLUSION IN THE HOME INSURANCE POLICY APPLIED; PLUMBING WORK WAS FAULTY, RESULTING IN FLOODING THROUGHOUT THE HOUSE; THE WATER DAMAGE WAS COVERED UNDER THE “ENSUING LOSS” EXCEPTION TO THE “FAULTY WORKMANSHIP” EXCLUSION (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, COLLAPSE OF PAVEMENT NEAR A STORM DRAIN WAS CAUSED BY WATER FLOWING INTO THE DRAIN OVER TIME AND WAS NOT THE IMMEDIATE RESULT OF ACTION TAKEN BY THE VILLAGE, THE CONDITION WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S KNOWLEDGE THE ICE AND SNOW WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WAS A RECURRING CONDITION (CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE), AS WELL AS DEFENDANT’S ROLE IN CREATING THE CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT).
Contractual Relationship Did Not Preclude Causes of Action Sounding in Tort
THE COURT REVERSED THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BECAUSE THE BOARD FAILED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE TOWN CODE WHEN IT GRANTED AREA VARIANCES, THE COURT ALSO NOTED THAT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS NOT AN AVAILABLE REMEDY FOR CHALLENGING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT)
Conversion Cause of Action Cannot Be Based Solely Upon Allegations of Breach of Contract
SUPREME COURT DID NOT RULE ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL, MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON TWO REMOTE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES WAS HARMLESS... QUESTIONS OF FACT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), LABOR LAW 241 (6), AND COMMON LAW...