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

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED OTHER SAFETY DEVICES (LADDERS, SCAFFOLDS) WERE AVAILABLE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS ACTIONS WERE NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly denied. Plaintiff was directed to repair the top rung of a permanent ladder which was missing a bolt. Plaintiff tried to pull himself up by grabbing the top rung which allegedly gave way causing him to fall. Plaintiff testified there were other safety devices (ladders, scaffolding) he could have used and did not demonstrate his actions did not constitute the sole proximate cause of his injuries:

“The single decisive question in determining whether Labor Law § 240(1) is applicable is whether the plaintiff’s injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential” … .

In order to obtain summary judgment on the issue of liability on a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, a plaintiff is required to demonstrate, prima facie, that there was a violation of the statute and that the violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries … . “Merely because a worker is injured while working above ground does not ipso facto mean that the injury resulted from an elevation-related risk contemplated by Section 240(1) of the Labor Law'” … .

Here, the plaintiffs failed to establish, prima facie, that there was a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), or that the injured plaintiff’s actions were not the sole proximate cause of his injuries…  In support of their motion, the plaintiffs submitted the injured plaintiff’s deposition testimony in which he stated that he fell when the top rung of the ship’s ladder, which he knew was missing a bolt and which he had been sent up to the roof to replace, detached while he was in the process of climbing the ladder and after he had attempted to pull himself up by placing his hand on the top rung. The injured plaintiff also testified at his deposition that there were other ladders and pipe scaffolding available to use at the jobsite. Jones v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 07708, Second Dept 11-14-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED OTHER SAFETY DEVICES (LADDERS, SCAFFOLDS) WERE AVAILABLE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS ACTIONS WERE NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES (SECOND DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED OTHER SAFETY DEVICES (LADDERS, SCAFFOLDS) WERE AVAILABLE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS ACTIONS WERE NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES (SECOND DEPT))/SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED OTHER SAFETY DEVICES (LADDERS, SCAFFOLDS) WERE AVAILABLE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS ACTIONS WERE NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF PAROLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO HOLD A DE NOVO PAROLE HEARING AS ORDERED BY THE ARTICLE 78 COURT, THE EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT CALL FOR A HEARING IN THIS CONTEXT, ONLY AN INTERVIEW (SECOND DEPT).
NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE LONG-ARM OR PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE ITALIAN MANUFACTURER OF A HOSE USED AS A COMPONENT IN A DISHWASHER MADE AND SOLD BY A NONPARTY (SECOND DEPT). ​
contract for the sale of busiwas not intertwined with the promissory note and personal guaranty
TWO PSYCHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSES INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE IN APPELLANT’S MENTAL HYGIENE LAW CIVIL COMMITMENT TRIAL HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE PSYCHOLOGICAL COMMUNITY; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A PASSENGER IN A STOPPED CAR HIT FROM BEHIND, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF’S DRIVER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT NO LONGER PRECLUDES SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Record-Keeping Was a Condition Precedent to Insurance Coverage
THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
A PARTY INJURED IN A HIT AND RUN TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CANNOT SUE THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) IF THE PARTY WAS OPERATING AN UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; HERE THE ELECTRIC BIKE PETITIONER WAS OPERATING WAS DEEMED AN UNINSURED MOTOR VEHICLE (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

DESPITE FATHER’S PRO SE MOTION SEEKING VISITATION, NO PROVISION FOR VISITATION... DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CONCERNING THE POSSIBILITY...