You are here: / / A COMPRESSOR ROLLING OFF A PALLET JACK ONTO PLAINTIFF’S ANKLE WAS...

A COMPRESSOR ROLLING OFF A PALLET JACK ONTO PLAINTIFF’S ANKLE WAS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED ACCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1), REGULATION-VIOLATION RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, CRITERIA FOR LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department affirmed most of Supreme Court's rulings granting summary judgment to defendants in this Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6) and 200 action. Plaintiff was moving a heavy compressor on a pallet jack when a wheel on the jack hit a small piece of concrete and the compressor rolled off the pallet jack onto plaintiff's ankle. The court found that the compressor was not a falling object within the meaning of Labor Law 240 (1). Plaintiff's raising a regulation violation (re: the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action) for the first time in opposition papers did not preclude consideration of the argument because no new factual allegations were involved, no new theories of liability were presented, and there was no prejudice. The decision offers a comprehensive explanation of the criteria for all three of these Labor Law causes of action. With regard to the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action, the court wrote:

“The extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240(1) extend only to a narrow class of special hazards, and do not encompass any and all perils that may be connected in some tangential way with the effects of gravity'” … . In determining whether a plaintiff is entitled to the extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240(1), the “single decisive question [is] 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” … . “Without a significant elevation differential, Labor Law § 240(1) does not apply, even if the injury is caused by the application of gravity on an object” … .

“With respect to falling objects, Labor Law § 240(1) applies where the falling of an object is related to a significant risk inherent in . . . the relative elevation . . . at which materials or loads must be positioned or secured'” … . Therefore, “a plaintiff must show more than simply that an object fell, thereby causing injury to a worker” … . “[A] plaintiff must show that, at the time the object fell, it was being hoisted or secured, or that the falling object required securing for the purposes of the undertaking” … . A plaintiff must also show that “the object fell . . . because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute” … .

We agree with the Supreme Court's granting of that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff's injuries were not caused by the elevation or gravity-related risks encompassed by Labor Law § 240(1) … . Simmons v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 06585, Second Dept 10-3-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (A COMPRESSOR ROLLING OFF A PALLET JACK ONTO PLAINTIFF'S ANKLE WAS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED ACCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1), REGULATION-VIOLATION RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, CRITERIA FOR LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT))/FALLING OBJECTS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, A COMPRESSOR ROLLING OFF A PALLET JACK ONTO PLAINTIFF'S ANKLE WAS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED ACCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1), REGULATION-VIOLATION RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, CRITERIA FOR LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT))/ELEVATION-RELATED RISKS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, A COMPRESSOR ROLLING OFF A PALLET JACK ONTO PLAINTIFF'S ANKLE WAS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED ACCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1), REGULATION-VIOLATION RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, CRITERIA FOR LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WHETHER NAIL AND MAIL SERVICE ON A SATURDAY VIOLATED THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW BECAUSE PLAINTIFF BANK WAS AWARE DEFENDANTS RECOGNIZED SATURDAY AS A HOLY DAY (SECOND DEPT).
THE 18 USC 1983 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE POLICE AND MUNICIPALITY WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE THE DOCTRINE OF REPONDEAT SUPERIOR DOES NOT APPLY AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE POLICE WERE ACTING PURSUANT TO A MUNICIPAL CUSTOM OR POLICY WHEN THEY ALLEGEDLY PUSHED PLAINTIFF TO THE GROUND, HANDCUFFED HER AND TASED HER; HOWEVER THE BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT ALLEGED ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS WAS IN NASSAU COUNTY BUT NEVER AMENDED ITS CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION WHICH DESIGNATED ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AS QUEENS COUNTY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CHANGE THE VENUE OF THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE FROM QUEENS TO NASSAU COUNTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Liability for Lead Paint Exposure Described
EMAILS INADVERTENTLY PROVIDED TO PLAINTIFF WERE NOT PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED A PROTECTIVE ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF DEMONSTRATING WHEN THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS LAST INSPECTED BEFORE THE FALL; THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; THE VIDEO SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED SO IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COURT (SECOND DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BY FATHER, THERE WAS NO ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE THE CHILD WAS PRESENT; NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT, ALTHOUGH MISSING SOME TERMS, SATISFIED THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE ACTION, HOWEVER, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE FINANCIAL ABILITY TO CLOSE ON THE LAW DATE (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PUBLIC NUISANCE CAUSE OF ACTION BROUGHT BY THE PLAINTIFF WHO ALLEGED SEXUAL... IN A DISPUTE BETWEEN A HOSPITAL AND A DOCTOR CONCERNING A CHARITABLE GIFT TO...