You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SCAFFOLD-COLLAPSE...

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SCAFFOLD-COLLAPSE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this scaffold-collapse, Labor Law 240 (1) action should have been granted. The defendant did not raise a question of fact whether plaintiff’s omission (failure to use clips) was sole proximate cause of the movement of the scaffold and the fall:

… [T]he collapse of the scaffold, for no apparent reason, gave rise to “a prima facie showing that the statute was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of the worker’s injuries” … . …

[Defendant] St. Gerard argued that the plaintiff failed to utilize clips to secure the working platform to the frame of the scaffold, and that this conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident. However, St. Gerard’s evidence was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff failed to use clips and whether any failure to use clips constituted the sole proximate cause of the accident. In this regard, St. Gerard relied solely on the affidavit of the plaintiff’s supervisor, Danny Simile, dated nearly 2½ years after the accident, in which Simile averred that “[t]here were no clips at the accident location.” Simile’s affidavit did not explain whether, when, or in what manner he had undertaken a search for clips. Significantly, the absence of clips was not noted in any of three incident reports prepared by Simile shortly after the accident. Additionally, Simile averred, in mere conclusory fashion, that had clips been used to secure the working platform, “the working platform would be secure and it would not move, slide out or fall.” This bare assertion was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether any absence of clips was the sole proximate cause of the accident. Indeed, Simile also averred that if the platform had been “properly seated’ or decked'” it would be “secure” and would not “move, slide out or fall.” There was no evidence presented that the platform had been improperly “seated” or “decked.” Cruz v Roman Catholic Church of St. Gerard Magella in Borough of Queens in the City of N.Y., 2019 NY Slip Op 05763, 

 

You might also like
Anonymous 911 Call Admitted Under Excited Utterance and Present Sense Impression Hearsay Exceptions
DEFENDANT COULD HAVE PLED GUILTY TO AN OFFENSE THAT DID NOT REQUIRE DEPORTATION, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY GRANTED.
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS AT THE TIME OF THE SLIP AND FALL, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE ICE FORMED AFTER A PRIOR STORM AND WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
“Filed Rate Doctrine” Precluded Lawsuit Alleging Unreasonable Premium
EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 FIRST SUBMITTED IN REPLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; THE EVIDENCE THE BANK HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS IN THIS ICY-STEP SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY WERE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS WHO WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ICE AND SNOW REMOVAL; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT THE LEASE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINITFF’S AGENTS WHO MAILED THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WERE NOT IDENTIFIED IN PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT OFFERED IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING; ALSO, THE AFFIDAVIT PROVIDED NO FOUNDATION FOR SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS FROM A THIRD-PARTY VENDOR; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED; THE REFEREE RELIED ON HEARSAY AND FAILED TO CONDUCT A HEARING ON NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY THE CPLR (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN ITS ACTION FOR SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE... SPOLIATION WARRANTED STRIKING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).