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

 

/by
You might also like
AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY, AN ACTION ALLEGING INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CANNOT BE BROUGHT AGAINST A MUNICIPALITY (SECOND DEPT).
ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR A PHYSICIAN BECAUSE THE WRITTEN AGREEMENTS CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE HOSPITAL AND THE PHYSICIAN WERE NOT SUBMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
RELIANCE ON A JURISDICTIONAL THEORY AT TRIAL WHICH DIFFERED FROM THE JURISDICTION CRITERIA ALLEGED IN THE INDICTMENT DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF FAIR NOTICE OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
DEFENDANT ABUTTING LESSEE DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE ITS SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS DID NOT EXACERBATE THE ICE-SNOW CONDITION IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.
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).
A CONTRACTOR WHICH CREATES A DANGEROUS CONDITION ON A PUBLIC SIDEWALK MAY BE LIABLE FOR A SLIP AND FALL BY A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT).
CONTRACTOR WHICH WAXED THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED AND FELL DID NOT OWE PLAINTIFF A DUTY OF CARE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THE CONTRACTOR LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ROOFER WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE HE FELL THROUGH AN UNPROTECTED HOLE IN THE ROOF WHICH WAS COVERED ONLY BY A SHEET OF BLACK PLASTIC; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF HAD UNTIED HIS SAFETY HARNESS SO HE COULD ASSIST A CO-WORKER DID NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT RELEVANT UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
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...