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
MOTHER’S REFUSING TO CONSENT TO AN INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM AND HER DELAY IN SCHEDULING AN INDEPENDENT NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF THE CHILD DID NOT CONSTITUTE EDUCATIONAL OR MEDICAL NEGLECT, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Most Important Among the Criteria for Allowing a Late Notice of Claim Is the Municipality’s Timely Knowledge of the Essential Facts Underlying the Claim (Not Met Here)
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BAR LIABLE FOR THIRD PARTY ASSAULT UNDER THE DRAM SHOP ACT AND NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Causes of Action Discussed in Extensive Modification of Supreme Court’s Orders
Defendant’s Counsel Took a Position Adverse to Defendant’s Motion to Vacate His Guilty Plea—Court Should Have Appointed New Counsel Before Hearing the Motion
MAINTENANCE WORKER’S BACK INJURY FROM CARRYING A HEAVY BAG OF GARBAGE WAS CAUSED BY A RISK INHERENT IN THE WORK, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE RAISED PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK FLAG OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED DID NOT ABUT DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY SEVERAL FEET OF THE FLAG EXTENDED IN FRONT OF DEFENDANTS’ PROPERTY; THE VILLAGE CODE MANDATES THAT ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER’S MAINTAIN SIDEWALKS IN A SAFE CONDITION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE THAT THEY MAINTAINED THE ABUTTING PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK IN A SAFE CONDITION OR THAT ANY FAILURE TO DO SO WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED BY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT IN A GUARDED DEPARTMENT PARKING LOT AND IN A LOCKED BATHROOM IN THE JAIL; BECAUSE THE COUNTY WAS ENGAGED IN A GOVERNMENTAL, NOT A PROPRIETARY, FUNCTION (PROVIDING SECURITY FOR THE PARKING LOT AND JAIL), PLAINTIFF MUST DEMONSTRATE THE COUNTY OWED HIM A SPECIAL DUTY, WHICH HE WAS UNABLE TO DO (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).