You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE...
,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ARGUMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S REPLY PAPERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should have been granted, noting that plaintiff’s argument in the reply papers should have been considered because it was a response to defendants’ opposition motion:

Plaintiff was injured when a metal shim plate affixed to a steel column, that was being installed as part of a temporary truss system, suddenly detached and hit him in the head. Plaintiff established that the accident was proximately caused by the undisputed failure of safety devices that were supposed to afford proper protection against the elevation-related risks that plaintiff faced during the installation of the column being hoisted into place … . The tack welds used to secure the metal shim plate to the column were “safety devices” for the purposes of Labor Law § 240(1) because they were intended to be a temporary measure to keep the shim plate attached to the column during installation … . The welds were to be removed once the column was in place, at which time the plates would be permanently bolted into place. The evidence established that the accident occurred when the welds failed, inasmuch as the shim plate, which weighed between 200 and 400 pounds, was welded on only one side of the metal column … . Thus, the shim plate “fell because of the inadequacy of a safety device. . .[that was] put in place as to give proper protection for” plaintiff, entitling him to partial summary judgment … .

The motion court should have considered plaintiff’s reply argument that the one-sided tack welds were insufficient to safely secure the shim plate to the column because it was made in response to defendants’ opposition to the motion … . Keerdoja v Legacy Yards Tenant, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 07537, First Dept 11-8-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ARGUMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S REPLY PAPERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (REPLY PAPERS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ARGUMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S REPLY PAPERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT))/REPLY (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, ARGUMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S REPLY PAPERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Disagreement About the Meaning of a Term in the Shared-Fee-Agreement Did Not Render the Contract Ambiguous—No Need for Interpretation of the Term by the Court
Inexperience or Lack of Sophistication Does Not Toll the Statute of Limitations Re: the Discovery of Fraud/The Test for When the Fraud Should Have Been Discovered in an Objective One
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO TURN OVER A VIDEOTAPE OF THE EVENT AT WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DID NOT WARRANT THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT DURING THE JURY TRIAL.
PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS RAISED ISSUES OF FACT REQUIRING DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION.
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD THE COURT WARNED HIM OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA.
PLAINTIFF WAS RAPED IN DEFENDANTS’ BAR/RESTAURANT AND RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF SECURITY AND THE FORESEEABILITY OF THE THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT BASED HIS DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY, IN PART, ON INACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT HIS SENTENCING EXPOSURE; GUILTY PLEAS VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGEDLY INCONSISTENT ACCOUNTS OF THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT.

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

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK WHEN HE FELL, LABOR LAW 240(1)... PROPRIETARY LEASE PROVISION ALLOWING THE LANDLORD TO RECOVER ATTORNEY’S...