You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LADDERS WERE AVAILABLE, PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN AN...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LADDERS WERE AVAILABLE, PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN AN INVERTED BUCKET HE WAS STANDING ON TIPPED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether ladders were available at the work site such that plaintiff did not need to stand on an inverted bucket to install sheetrock. Plaintiff was injured when the bucket tipped and he fell:

“Under Labor Law § 240(1), owners and general contractors, and their agents, have a nondelegable duty to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites” … . “To prevail on a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, a plaintiff must establish that the statute was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries” … . “Liability under section 240(1) does not attach when the safety devices that plaintiff alleges were absent were readily available at the work site, albeit not in the immediate vicinity of the accident, and plaintiff knew he was expected to use them but for no good reason chose not to do so, causing an accident. In such cases, plaintiff’s own negligence is the sole proximate cause of his injury”… .

Here, the plaintiff failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. In support of his motion, the plaintiff submitted transcripts of his deposition, in which he testified that there were ladders and Bakers scaffolds kept on the job site. Lorde v Margaret Tietz Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr., 2018 NY Slip Op 04542, Second Dept 6-20-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LADDERS WERE AVAILABLE, PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN AN INVERTED BUCKET HE WAS STANDING ON TIPPED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LADDERS WERE AVAILABLE, PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN AN INVERTED BUCKET HE WAS STANDING ON TIPPED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
​THE BUYER WAS NOTIFED TIME WAS OF THE ESSENCE IN THIS REAL ESTATE DEAL AND WAS GIVEN A REASONABLE TIME IN WHICH TO CLOSE; THEREFORE THE BUYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND THE SELLERS WERE ENTITLED TO THE DOWN PAYMENT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).
SNOW-REMOVAL COMPANY NOT LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACT; NO NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO ADDRESS ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS IN ITS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IF THE EXCEPTIONS ARE NOT PLED BY THE PLAINTIFF.
DEFENDANTS DID NOT CONTROL THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, NOT CONSTRUCTION. LABOR LAW 200 AND 240(1) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.
DEFENDANT WAIVED THE LACK-OF-PERSONAL-JURISDICTION DEFENSE BY COUNSEL’S FILING A NOTICE OF APPEARANCE WITHOUT RAISING THE JURISDICTION OBJECTION (SECOND DEPT).
Ambiguity in Separation Agreement Construed Against Drafter
Basketball Player Assumed Risk of Running Into Glass Doors Behind Baseline
Concurrent, Not Consecutive, Sentences Should Have Been Imposed Where “Actus Reus” Was a Single, Inseparable Act
IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FAMILIARITY WITH THE APPLICABLE STANDARD OF CARE, WAS SPECULATIVE AND CONCLUSORY AND DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ASSERTIONS MADE BY DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS; THE DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND 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

ATTORNEY ENTITLED TO THE REMAINDER OF HER FEE UNDER AN ACCOUNT STATED THEORY... DEFENDANT SELLER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF BUYER COULD NOT BE READY, WILLING...