You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED UNLOADING A TRUCK, HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT...

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED UNLOADING A TRUCK, HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff was injured when a truck was being unloaded:

A hydraulic lift was being used to lower the flooring materials in pallets, or “skids,” weighing approximately 2,500 to 3,000 pounds, from the bed of the truck to the ground, an elevation of approximately four feet. One of the skids, which had been loaded onto the lift, fell off the lift and struck the plaintiff. …

” Labor Law § 240(1) was designed to prevent those types of accidents in which the scaffold, hoist, stay, ladder or other protective device proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person'” … . The plaintiff’s evidence established, prima facie, that the … defendants violated Labor Law § 240(1) by failing to provide an appropriate safety device to secure the subject materials as they were being lowered, and that this failure was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury … . Ramos-Perez v Evelyn USA, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 00629, Second Dept 1-30-19

 

You might also like
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK’S FAILURE TO EXPLAIN WHY AN AFFIDAVIT DEMONSTRATING THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT WAS PROPERLY MAILED WAS NOT SUBMITTED WITH THE INITIAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PRECLUDED A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW (SECOND DEPT).
SOCIAL SERVICES LAW ARTICLE 11 DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR THE INAPPROPRIATE USE OF PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS (SECOND DEPT).
ABSENT PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S ORDER ON FATHER OR FATHER’S COUNSEL, THE TIME FOR FILING OBJECTIONS TO THE ORDER NEVER BEGAN RUNNING (SECOND DEPT). ​
AN AGREEMENT SIGNED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION REQUIRING THE DEPOSITION OF EXPERT WITNESSES 120 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL IS VOID AND UNENFORCEABLE AS AGAINST THE POLICY UNDERLYING THE EXPERT DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS OF THE CPLR (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE BASED AN UPWARD DEPARTURE IN THIS SORA RISK-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ON GROUNDS NOT RAISED BY THE PEOPLE WHERE THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST THOSE GROUNDS (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF DID NOT SUPPORT TERMINATION OF FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS (SECOND DEPT).
ALLEGATIONS IN COMPLAINT AND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO A MOTION TO DISMISS MUST BE TREATED AS TRUE, PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RELEASE PROCURED BY FRAUD (SECOND DEPT).
ORGANIZATION HAD STANDING TO CONTEST HARDSHIP WAIVER GRANTED TO MINE IN CORE PRESERVATION AREA.

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

EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT USED HIS FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE WITNESS (DEFENDANT’S... PLAINTIFF’S PRO SE LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED...