You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS KILLED WHEN A HEAVY PIECE OF EQUIPMENT HE WAS WELDING FELL;...

PLAINTIFF WAS KILLED WHEN A HEAVY PIECE OF EQUIPMENT HE WAS WELDING FELL; ALTHOUGH THE EQUIPMENT WAS FABRICATED FOR A POWER PLANT BEING CONSTRUCTED IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff was not involved in an activity covered by Labor Law 240 (1) when he was pinned and killed by a piece of equipment he was welding. Plaintiff was engaged in fabricating a rotor compartment which was to be installed in a power plaint in New Hampshire. Plaintiff and the dissent argued plaintiff’s work was part of the New Hampshire construction project:

We conclude that defendants thus established that decedent was not engaged in a covered activity under Labor Law § 240 (1) inasmuch as he was performing his “customary occupational work of fabricating” and welding a rotor compartment “during the normal manufacturing process” at the plant in Wellsville, and was not involved in the construction project in New Hampshire nor involved in renovation or alteration work on the plant in Wellsville … . Preston v APCH, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06236, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

You might also like
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE RESULTS OF THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A GARBAGE BAG AND CELL-SITE LOCATION RECORDS WHICH WERE JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES , AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THE STRENGTH OF DNA EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE FACT THAT THE BENCH WARRANT WAS BASED UPON A CHARGE FOR WHICH THE STATUTORY SPEEDY TRIAL PERIOD HAD EXPIRED DID NOT INVALIDATE THE EXECUTION OF THE WARRANT AND THE RESULTING ARREST FOR RESISTING ARREST (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED PLAINTIFF IN THIS ASBESTOS-EXPOSURE CASE PROVED GENERAL AND SPECIFIC CAUSATION THROUGH EXPERT TESTIMONY; THE DISSENT ARGUED NEITHER CAUSATION ELEMENT WAS SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
Conditioning Co-Defendant’s Plea on a Promise Not to Testify in Defendant’s Trial Is a Denial of the Right to Present a Defense
Pat-down Search Pursuant to a Stop for a Traffic Infraction Unlawful—Injury to Officer During Unlawful Search Will Not Support Assault Conviction (Which Requires the Officer Be Injured Performing a Lawful Duty)
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE, MADE ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, WAS NOT UNTIMELY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY DENIED ON THAT GROUND, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE LOOKED BEYOND THE PLEADINGS IN CONSIDERING THE MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT; THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Criteria for CPL 440.20 Motion Explained/Predicate Offenses Must Run Concurrently

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 COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED GRAND JURY REPORTS RE: THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT,... UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LEASE AND VILLAGE REGULATIONS, THE HERKIMER COUNTY INDUSTRIAL...