You are here: / / NEITHER PLAINTIFF NOR DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS...

NEITHER PLAINTIFF NOR DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS “FALL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER” CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined both plaintiff’s and defendants’ motions for summary judgment were properly denied. The plaintiff was cutting brackets which held up an air duct with an electric saw when the duct came down and plaintiff fell off an A-frame ladder. The fact that plaintiff fell from a ladder did not, standing alone, warrant summary judgment on plaintiff;s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. The defendants did not demonstrate that the ladder provided proper protection or that plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident:

… [T]he plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the subject ladder was an inadequate safety device for the work in which he was engaged at the time of his alleged accident … . The mere fact that the plaintiff fell from a ladder does not, in and of itself, establish that proper protection was not provided … . The opinion of the plaintiff’s expert failed to establish that the ladder that was provided was an inadequate safety device … .

… [D]efendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on that branch of their cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. The defendants’ expert’s affidavit, in which the expert opined that the subject ladder “was so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection,” is conclusory and unsupported by evidence in the record. The defendants also failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of his fall because he allegedly failed to use scaffolding that was readily available at the job site  … . In addition, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of his fall because he allegedly improperly positioned the ladder … , did not ask his coworker to cut the bracket for him … , and did not demand that his foreman provide scaffolding … . Orellana v 7 W. 34th St., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 04711, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

You might also like
PETITIONER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER UNDER POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION, CAN BE PLACED IN RESIDENTIAL CORRECTIONS FACILITIES PENDING THE AVAILABILITY OF COMMUNITY HOUSING THAT IS MORE THAN 1000 FEET FROM A SCHOOL (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DRIVER’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, WHICH CONTRADICTED THE ACCIDENT REPORT AND MV-104 FORM, DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE OF RPAPL 1304 WHICH REQUIRES THAT NOTHING ELSE BE INCLUDED IN THE ENVELOPE WITH THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE; THE BANK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY TO ENSURE DEFENDANT INTELLIGENTLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL AFTER HIS ATTORNEY WAS PERMITTED TO WITHDRAW; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW NOT DEMONSTRATED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE VEHICLE WHICH STRUCK PETITIONER WAS THE VEHICLE INSURED BY GEICO; ARBITRATION OF PETITIONER’S DEMAND FOR UNINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS FROM ALLSTATE, HER INSURER, SHOULD HAVE BEEN STAYED AND A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON THE WRONG VENUE BECAUSE RESPONDENTS DID NOT OBJECT TO THE VENUE; IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE BASED UPON A STILLBIRTH, MOTHER’S AND FATHER’S PETITIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY; ALTHOUGH PETITIONERS DID NOT SHOW RESPONDENTS HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT, MOTHER DEMONSTRATED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE AND RESPONDENTS’ LACK OF PREJUDICE; MOTHER’S PETITION WAS GRANTED AND FATHER’S WAS DENIED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT VERIFIED PROPERLY OVERLOOKED (SECOND... THE NEGATIVE CHARACTER TESTIMONY WAS PROPERLY STRUCK, NOT BECAUSE SUCH EVIDENCE...