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

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED THE FAILURE OF A TOE BOARD WAS AT LEAST A CONTRIBUTING CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A ROOF, CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A BAR TO RECOVERY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff fell from a roof after a toe board became detached from the roof:

“Plaintiff[s] met [their] initial burden by establishing that [plaintiff’s] injury was proximately caused by the failure of a safety device to afford him proper protection from an elevation-related risk” … . “[T]he question of whether [a] device provided proper protection within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) is ordinarily a question of fact, except in those instances where the unrefuted evidence establishes that the device collapsed, slipped or otherwise failed to perform its [intended] function of supporting the worker and his or her materials” … . Here, plaintiffs established that, on the morning of the accident, plaintiff had been instructed to work on a pitched roof on which “toe boards,” i.e., two- by six-inch boards nailed directly to the roof approximately two to three feet up from the bottom edge of the roof, had already been installed, and defendants failed to submit non-speculative evidence to the contrary. There is no dispute that the toe boards detached from the roof while plaintiff was working, causing him to fall and sustain injuries. The failure of that safety device constituted a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) as a matter of law  …, and that violation was, at minimum, ” a contributing cause of [plaintiff’s] fall’ “… . Thus, contrary to defendants’ contentions, plaintiff’s alleged failure to utilize other safety devices available on the job site, including his alleged failure to reinstall the toe boards with additional supporting roof jacks, raises no more than an issue of contributory negligence … . Provens v Ben-Fall Dev., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 05426, Fourth Dept 7-25-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED THE FAILURE OF A TOE BOARD WAS AT LEAST A CONTRIBUTING CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A ROOF, CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A BAR TO RECOVERY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff’s Conduct, Placing Ladder on Ice, Was Sole Proximate Cause of Injury
THE MAJORITY NOTED THAT A DECISION IS NOT AN APPEALABLE PAPER BUT HELD THE DECISION HERE IN THIS DIVORCE CASE MET THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF AN ORDER AND WAS THEREFORE APPEALABLE; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE FELL THROUGH A FLOOR OPENING IN A HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, DEFENDANT HAD PLACED CARDBOARD OVER THE OPENING, THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Supreme Court Properly Annulled New York Division of Human Rights’ Determination there Was No Probable Cause to Believe the School District Discriminated against Petitioner When It Refused to Hire Her Because of Her Anticipated Absence (Due to Pregnancy)
RESCISSION IS NOT APPROPRIATE WHERE THE PARTIES CANNOT BE RETURNED TO THE STATUS QUO; A BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE DISMISSED IF DAMAGES ARE NOT ESTABLISHED (FOURTH DEPT).
LOCAL LAW WHICH CONFLICTED WITH THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT WAS PROPERLY DECLARED INVALID 4TH DEPT.
Relationship Between the “Open Repudiation [of Fiduciary Obligations] Rule” and the Laches Defense Explained/Allegations that Investments Made by the Fiduciary Underperformed Does Not State a Cause of Action for Breach of the Fiduciary Duty
WHEN A WITNESS’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT FROM A PHOTOGRAPH SHOWN TO HIM BY THE POLICE IS DEEMED “CONFIRMATORY,” THAT CONCLUSION IS TANTAMOUNT TO A DETERMINATION AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE POLICE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS NOT SUGGESTIVE AND COULD NOT HAVE LED TO THE MISIDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE THE WITNESS KNEW THE DEFENDANT WELL; HERE THE PROOF THE IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH 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

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON A FINDING... ATTORNEY’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW BECAUSE OF CLIENT’S FAILURE TO PAY...