You are here: / / CONFLICTING EVIDENCE WHETHER THE PLYWOOD WHICH FLEXED CAUSING PLAINTIFF...

CONFLICTING EVIDENCE WHETHER THE PLYWOOD WHICH FLEXED CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO FALL WAS OVER A THREE-FOOT DEEP HOLE OR TRENCH; LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined the Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action should not have been dismissed. There was conflicting evidence whether the plywood which flexed causing plaintiff to fall was over a three-foot deep hole or trench:

… [T]here was conflicting deposition testimony regarding whether the plywood was, under the circumstances, the functional equivalent of a scaffold meant to prevent the plaintiff from falling into a three-foot-deep hole or trench … . …

… [T]he regulation which plaintiff alleges was violated concerns structural runways, ramps, and platforms (see 12 NYCRR 23-1.22[b]), which is a regulation that sets forth specific standards of conduct sufficient to support a Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action … . Similar to the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, the conflicting deposition testimony … raised a triable issue of fact as to whether there was insufficient bracing under the plywood … . Davies v Simon Prop. Group, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05955, Fourth Dept 7-31-19

 

You might also like
DEFENDANTS’ CAR WAS STOPPED IN THE SHOULDER LANE FOR A NON-EMERGENCY REASON WHEN THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER STRUCK IT FROM BEHIND; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER STOPPING THE CAR IN THE SHOULDER LANE FOR A NON-EMERGENCY REASON WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (AS OPPOSED TO MERELY FURNISHING THE OCCASION FOR THE ACCIDENT?) (SECOND DEPT).
DESPITE AMBIGUITIES IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE EASEMENT, THE LOCATION CAN BE DETERMINED AND THE EASEMENT IS THEREFORE VALID (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT AND HIS SON WERE REPRESENTED BY THE SAME ATTORNEY; DEFENDANT ALLEGEDLY PLED GUILTY TO ATTEMPTED ASSAULT BECAUSE HE WAS TOLD HIS SON WOULD DO JAIL TIME IF DEFENDANT DID NOT ENTER THE PLEA; BECAUSE OF THE ATTORNEY’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
A DRAINAGE GRATE WHICH DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY CODE AND WHICH IS NOT DEFECTIVE IS NOT A DANGEROUS CONDITION SIMPLY BECAUSE IT WAS WET FROM RAIN AT THE TIME OF THE SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).
Questions of Fact Raised Re: Whether Property Owner Liable for Work Done by Independent Contractor
VIOLATIONS OF ORDINANCES, ADMINISTRATIVE RULES OR REGULATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE PER SE, ONLY VIOLATIONS OF STATUTES CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE PER SE (SECOND DEPT).
THREE-FOOT HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL IN ROOF LEVELS WAS NOT THE TYPE OF ELEVATION HAZARD CONTEMPLATED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH COMPLAINANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SHE WAS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THE COOPERATIVE BASED UPON A DISABILITY, COMPLAINANT DID DEMONSTRATE THE COOPERATIVE IMPROPERLY RETALIATED AGAINST HER AFTER SHE FILED THE DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WITH THE NYS DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

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

THE CLAIM WAS NOT JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO SPECIFICALLY ALLEGE... ALTHOUGH THE JURY WAS PROPERLY INSTRUCTED TO ACQUIT ON ALL COUNTS IF THE JUSTIFICATION...