You are here: / / PLAINTIFF, WHO IS FIVE FOOT SEVEN, WAS INJURED WHEN A SIX FOOT HIGH STACK...

PLAINTIFF, WHO IS FIVE FOOT SEVEN, WAS INJURED WHEN A SIX FOOT HIGH STACK OF SCAFFOLDS PARTIALLY FELL ON HIM, THE HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL WAS DEEMED DE MINIMUS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) action was properly granted. Plaintiff, who is five feet seven inches tall, was injured when a six-foot high stack of scaffold partially fell over. The difference between the plaintiff’s height and the height of the stacked scaffolds was deemed de minimus:

In a previous appeal from an order deciding the parties’ motions for summary judgment, we determined that the scaffolding frames, estimated to be about six feet tall, established an elevation differential, but that questions of fact remained as to plaintiff’s actual height, “the number of scaffolds stacked in the pile that collapsed, the weight of each scaffold and the manner in which the scaffold(s) struck plaintiff” … . These details are significant because “[i]n determining whether an elevation differential is physically significant or de minimus, we must consider not only the height differential itself, but also ‘the weight of the [falling] object and the amount of force it was capable of generating, even over the course of a relatively short descent'” … . …

To support their motion, defendants submitted the affidavit of Ernest Gailor, an engineer. Gailor opined that “the [five]-inch differential between the top of . . . plaintiff’s head and the maximum height of [the] frames . . . did not significantly contribute to the ‘total’ force at impact of the offending frame as it struck plaintiff.” * * *

In our view, defendants’ submissions established a prima facie basis to conclude that the elevation differential here was de minimus and that plaintiff’s claim falls outside the scope of Labor Law § 240 (1). Wright v Ellsworth Partners, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 04803, Third Dept 6-13-19

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT ARGUED HAD SHE BEEN INFORMED DEPORTATION WAS NOT AN ISSUE SHE WOULD HAVE PLED GUILTY AND THEREBY AVOIDED THE LONGER SENTENCE IMPOSED AFTER TRIAL, HEARING ON MOTION TO SET ASIDE HER CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD.
NEWSPAPER ASSEMBLY AND DELIVERY PERSON WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
Whether a Confidential Relationship Existed With Decedent Is a Question of Fact for the Jury; Application of Dead Man’s Statute Explained
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH PROPERLY DENIED THE FOIL REQUEST FOR CERTAIN DOCUMENTS ON THE GROUND THE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT ‘REASONABLY DESCRIBED’ (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE TYPE OF STICKS AND BALLS USED IN THE LACROSSE GAME AND WHETHER THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE GOGGLES WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF-STUDENT’S EYE INJURY (THIRD DEPT).
Father’s Incarceration Justified a Modification of Custody/Sole Custody Awarded to Mother
DEFENDANT’S OMISSIONS, INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND LIES AFTER A ROUTINE TRAFFIC STOP JUSTIFIED THE CANINE SNIFF.
UNDER THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES LAW, LAID OFF SEASONAL EMPLOYEES WHO HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION TO A PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION WERE NOT ENTITLED TO REMAIN IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNIT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WHEN REHIRED BY THE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION (THIRD 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

THREE PRIOR INSURERS OF THE PROPERTY CONTAMINATED BY AN OIL SPILL, SUED BY THE... ATV’S ARE NOT MOTOR VEHICLES WITHIN THE MEANING OF PENAL LAW 125.13 (1)...