You are here: / / REMOVING ICE AND SNOW FROM THE ROOF OF A COMMERCIAL BUILDING IS COVERED...

REMOVING ICE AND SNOW FROM THE ROOF OF A COMMERCIAL BUILDING IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), IT DOESN’T MATTER WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED FROM THE FALL FROM THE BUCKET OF THE BACKHOE OR FROM BEING STRUCK BY THE BACKHOE (WHICH WAS BEING USED TO LIFT PLAINTIFF TO THE ROOF), PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly granted. Plaintiff fell from the bucket of a backhoe which was being used to lift him to the roof, where he was to remove snow and ice:

Labor Law § 240 (1) “applies where an employee is engaged in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure’ ” … . We conclude that, contrary to defendant’s contention, the removal of snow and ice from the roof of a commercial building, under these circumstances, constitutes a form of “cleaning,” thereby bringing it within the ambit of Labor Law § 240 (1) … .

We reject defendant’s contention that plaintiff was not injured by an elevation-related risk within the scope of Labor Law § 240 (1). Plaintiff established the necessary elements for liability under section 240 (1) by submitting evidence that he suffered “harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person”… , and defendant did not raise a question of material fact… .

… [P]aintiff is entitled to summary judgment irrespective of whether his injuries were caused by the fall itself or by being struck by the backhoe in the moments immediately following the fall. “To establish a prima facie case plaintiff need not demonstrate that the precise manner in which the accident happened or the injuries occurred was foreseeable; it is sufficient that he demonstrate that the risk of some injury from defendants’ conduct was foreseeable” … . “Thus, a plaintiff merely has to demonstrate that he or she was injured when an elevation-related safety device failed to perform its function to support and secure him from injury”… . Here, the safety equipment provided to plaintiff did not prevent him from falling; thus, the core objective of Labor Law § 240 (1) was not met … . Plaintiff’s injury was a normal and foreseeable consequence of the failure of the safety equipment … . Burns v Marcellus Lanes, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 00801, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

You might also like
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH EMPLOYMENT AND DEFAMATION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED; ELEMENTS EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).
Persons Entering the Hall of Justice, In Which Signs Are Posted Warning that Those Entering the Premises Are Subject to Being Searched, Impliedly Consent to a Full Search, Including the Opening of Objects Found in the Search
DEPUTY SHERIFF WAS COERCED INTO RESIGNING WITHOUT A HEARING, SHERIFF SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED DEPUTY TO WITHDRAW HIS RESIGNATION (FOURTH DEPT).
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE EMPLOYER’S DIRECTIVE TO TAKE THE COVID-19 VACCINE JUSTIFIED THE TERMINATION OF PETITIONER’S EMPLOYMENT; THE ARBITRATOR’S RULING TO THAT EFFECT DID NOT VIOLATE PUBLIC POLICY AND WAS NOT IRRATIONAL (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, WHO FELL THROUGH A HOLE IN A HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK COVERED BY LABOR 240 (1) OR 241 (6), PLAINTIFF WAS MEASURING WINDOWS FOR FUTURE INSTALLATION OF WINDOW TREATMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).
STATUTE CRIMINALIZING THE POSSESSION OF AN UNLICENSED FIREARM DOES NOT VIOLATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES DID NOT APPLY TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AMEND THE DRO TO SPECIFY PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A SHARE OF DEFENDANT’S DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT WOULD HAVE APPLIED THE LACHES DOCTRINE (FOURTH DEPT).
WHETHER TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE EXTREME EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE (EED) AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MUST BE DETERMINED BASED SOLELY UPON THE PEOPLE’S PROOF AT TRIAL; IT WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR FOR THE COURT TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION PRIOR TO TRIAL (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

WHETHER TO MOVE FOR A MISTRIAL IS A DECISION FOR DEFENSE COUNSEL, NOT DEFENDANT,... BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION MUST BE PLED WITH PARTICULARITY (FOURTH...