You are here: / / PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD WHICH HAD NO RAILINGS, PLAINTIFF DID NOT...

PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD WHICH HAD NO RAILINGS, PLAINTIFF DID NOT NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THE SCAFFOLD WAS DEFECTIVE, PLAINTIFF PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) scaffold-fall case was properly granted. The scaffold had not railings and plaintiff fell when the scaffold tipped because one of its wheels went through the floor. The court noted that plaintiff was not required to show that the scaffold was defective:

It is undisputed that the scaffold he was supplied with and directed to use lacked railings, and that he fell off when the scaffold tipped as one wheel broke through the floor on which it was standing. Plaintiff was not provided with any other safety devices. This evidence establishes prima facie a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Plaintiff was not required to show that the scaffold was defective … . Martinez-Gonzalez v 56 W. 75th St., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 04111, First Dept 5-28-19

 

/by
You might also like
Property Owner Responsible for Defect in Sidewalk that Did Not Directly “Abut” Owner’s Property (Liability Based On New York City Ordinance).
UNLOADING STEEL PLATES USED TO COVER EXCAVATED AREAS AT A CONSTRUCTION SITE WAS A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Defendant’s Negligence Precluded Her Reliance on the Doctrine of Mutual Mistake to Rescind a Valid Oral Contract
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED SLIP AND FALL PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
Son Entitled to Remain in Deceased Mother’s Apartment​
UNDER THE MULTIPLE DWELLING LAW, LESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT FROM THE SUBTENANTS FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THERE WAS NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (FIRST DEPT).
IN AN ACTION BY CATERING WAITSTAFF SEEKING TIPS ALLEGEDLY WITHHELD BY THE EMPLOYER IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR LAW, THE EMPLOYER CANNOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FROM A CONTRACTOR WHICH SUPPLIED CATERING STAFF TO THE EMPLOYER (FIRST DEPT). ​
Videotaped Interview Indicated Defendant Did Not Understand His Right to Counsel—The Videotaped Statement, As Well As the Prior Oral and Written Statements, Should Have Been Suppressed

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

[gravityform id=”1″ title=”false” description=”false” tabindex=”2″]

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT RESTAURANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE... PETITIONER, WHO CONSENTED TO PROVIDING A DNA SAMPLE AFTER ARREST, MAY SEEK DISCRETIONARY...