You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE FREE-STANDING BRACE FRAME WAS AT THE SAME LEVEL AS PLAINTIFF...

ALTHOUGH THE FREE-STANDING BRACE FRAME WAS AT THE SAME LEVEL AS PLAINTIFF AT THE TIME IT FELL OVER, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that, although the brace frame and plaintiff were at the same level, the injury caused by the free-standing brace frame tipping over was covered by Labor Law 240 (1):

The brace frames … , which stood at least 12 feet tall and weighed approximately 1,500 pounds, were not connected to the excavator bucket or any other device either to hold them upright once the connector pins were removed or to lower them slowly to the ground. When plaintiff removed the last connector pin, the brace frame fell and struck him.

Contrary to defendants’ contention, this evidence establishes prima facie that the activity in which plaintiff was engaged is covered under Labor Law § 240(1). Although plaintiff and the brace frame were at the same level at the time of the accident, the work plaintiff was doing posed a substantial gravity-related risk, because the falling of the brace frame away from the formwork panel would have generated a significant amount of force … .

An engineer employed by defendant Peri Formwork Systems, Inc., the manufacturer of the formwork structure, testified that if a formwork structure was disassembled on the ground, then the brace frames had to be secured by a crane before removing them, and if the formwork structure was standing upright, then each individual component had to be secured by a crane. He said that an unsecured brace frame freestanding in the air would pose a hazard to any worker standing nearby. Encarnacion v 3361 Third Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 07746, First Dept 10-29-19

 

You might also like
THE TREE WELL IN THE SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS THE RESPONSIBILTY OF THE CITY, NOT DEFENDANT ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER (FIRST DEPT). ​
JURY ONLY CONSIDERED THE TREATMENT OF PLAINTIFF’S LEG AFTER IT HAD BEEN INJURED BY A DRIVER, THE DRIVER WAS PROPERLY NOT INCLUDED IN THE MALPRACTICE VERDICT SHEET.
THE LANGUAGE OF THE POLICY IS NOT AMBIGUOUS AND CAN NOT BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THE POLICY COVERED A PREMISES AT WHICH THE INSURED DID NOT RESIDE (FIRST DEPT).
Action for Contingency Fee; No Demonstration Law Firm Had Been Discharged
EVEN THOUGH THE COOPERATIVE LANDLORD WON IN THE UNDERLYING LITIGATION AGAINST A SHAREHOLDER TENANT, THE LEASE PROVISION REQUIRING THE TENANT TO PAY ATTORNEY’S FEES REGARDLESS OF DEFAULT OR MERIT WAS UNENFORCEABLE AS UNCONSCIONABLE (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE WAS MADE MORE THAN 15 DAYS AFTER THE DEMAND TO CHANGE VENUE; THE 15-DAY TIME-LIMIT IS STRICTLY ENFORCED AND THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT). ​
A MINOR INJURY TO ONE CHILD BY ANOTHER WHILE MOTHER WAS NAPPING NEARBY, AND A SUBSEQUENT VERBAL ARGUMENT WITH THE POLICE, DID NOT AMOUNT TO NEGLECT BY MOTHER (FIRST DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT CHARGING FORCIBLE TOUCHING DID NOT ALLEGE THE APPLICATION OF PRESSURE AS AN ELEMENT OF THE TOUCHING RENDERING THE COMPLAINT LEGALLY INSFUFFICIENT (FIRST 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

SCAFFOLD TIPPED PINNING PLAINTIFF’S HAND AGAINST A WALL; SPECULATIVE EVIDENCE... INSURER’S ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION REPORT IS PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE...