You are here: / / MERELY LOSING ONE’S BALANCE AND FALLING FROM A LADDER DOES NOT GIVE...

MERELY LOSING ONE’S BALANCE AND FALLING FROM A LADDER DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6) and 200 action. There were questions of fact about how the accident happened, whether the plaintiff was employed by a defendant, whether that defendant was employed by the owner, and whether defendant had authority or control over the site or plaintiff. In addition neither the complaint nor the bill of particulars cited a specific Industrial Code violation. The court noted than merely losing one’s balance and falling off a ladder does not give rise to liability under Labor Law 240 (1):

A defendant is not liable on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action unless it is an owner or “a general contractor or an agent of an owner or general contractor with the authority to supervise and control the work of . . . the injured plaintiff” … and, in order for the statute to apply, “a plaintiff must demonstrate that he [or she] was both permitted or suffered to work on a building or structure and that he [or she] was hired by someone, be it owner, contractor or . . . agent [thereof]” … . …

Defendant would not be liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) if plaintiff merely lost his balance and fell off a ladder … . … Pelonero v Sturm Roofing, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06327, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

You might also like
WHETHER A SUCCESSFUL MOTION TO DISMISS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE ON DOUBLE JEOPARDY GROUNDS PURSUANT TO CPL 40.20 COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED ON DIRECT APPEAL, THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).
ENGAGING IN COUNSELING SHOULD NOT BE A CONDITION OF VISITATION; THE COURT SHOULD NOT DELEGATE ITS AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE IF AND WHEN VISITATION SHOULD OCCUR TO A COUNSELOR (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE POLICE MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THE MAN IN A MOTEL ROOM (DEFENDANT) WAS A SUSPECT IN A SHOOTING; AN INFORMANT HAD TOLD THE POLICE THE MAN IN THE ROOM WAS FROM ROCHESTER, HIS NICKNAME WAS “JAY” AND HE “HAD A WARRANT;” WHEN THE MAN LEFT THE ROOM, THE POLICE STOPPED HIS TAXI; THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGALITY OF THE STOP (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERMS OF THE NOTE REFLECTED THE ACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES (MUTUAL MISTAKE) (FOURTH DEPT).
IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ALLOW EVIDENCE OF TWO FORGED CHECKS AT THE SECOND FORGERY TRIAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN ACQUITTED OF THE CHARGES RELATED TO THOSE CHECKS IN THE FIRST TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).
Trial Court Should Not Have Precluded Expert Testimony Based Upon Failure to Make Timely Disclosures— Rather, the Trial Should Have Been Adjourned
Statements Made by Defendant During First 15 Hours of a 60-Hour Interrogation Not Coerced
CONTRARY TO FAMILY COURT’S RULING, THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTED PARENTAL NEGLECT FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO ALL THE CHILDREN FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEDICAL AND DENTAL TREATMENT AND FAILURE TO ENSURE SCHOOL ATTENDANCE (FOURTH 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

CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW WERE NOT MET, DISSENTERS ARGUED THE COURT HAD... DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEYS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED BECAUSE THEY HAD...