You are here: / / SCAFFOLD TIPPED PINNING PLAINTIFF’S HAND AGAINST A WALL; SPECULATIVE...

SCAFFOLD TIPPED PINNING PLAINTIFF’S HAND AGAINST A WALL; SPECULATIVE EVIDENCE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS BEING THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. A scaffold tipped and pinned his hand against a wall, and plaintiff’s actions did not constitute the sole proximate cause of the injuries:

Plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim. Regardless of whether plaintiff’s hand was struck by the beam of the scaffold or the counterweights placed on the scaffold, this matter falls within the purview of Labor Law § 240(1). Plaintiff’s injuries were the direct result of the application of the force of gravity to the scaffold and the counterweights, and, although the scaffold and counterweights fell a short distance after the scaffold tipped, the elevation differential was not de minimis, as their combined weight of over 2,400 pounds was capable of generating a great amount of force during the short descent … .

The scaffold was a load that required securing for the purpose of plaintiff’s undertaking … . Contrary to defendants’ contention, the counterweights were not a safety device provided to secure the equipment being tied to the bracket, but were to balance a scaffold that would later be suspended from it.

Furthermore, the record establishes, as a matter of law, that plaintiff was not the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Plaintiff and his coworker both testified that there was slack in the tieback at the time of the accident. Their foreman’s testimony that the scaffold tipped over due to overtightening of the tieback by plaintiff is speculative, as he did not witness the accident. The reports and expert affidavit submitted by defendants concluding that the accident was caused by overtightening are also speculative. In any event, even accepting the defense’s proof, it is still insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to sole proximate causation, since the record established that the scaffold tipped over in part due to being inadequately secured, raising only comparative negligence by plaintiff … . Ortega v Trinity Hudson Holding LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 07743, First Dept 10-29-19

 

You might also like
Warrantless Search of Defendant’s Jacket Not Justified–Defendant Was Handcuffed Inside a Police Car and Jacket Was Outside the Car
INSURER NOT LIABLE FOR POLLUTION DAMAGE DURING PERIODS WHEN POLLUTION INSURANCE WAS PROHIBITED BY LAW.
THE TREE WELL IN THE SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS THE RESPONSIBILTY OF THE CITY, NOT DEFENDANT ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER (FIRST DEPT). ​
INSURER OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES NOT ENTITLED TO RECOVER ALL CLAIMS PAID OUT AS A RESULT OF 50% OF THE UNDERLYING MORTGAGES GOING INTO DEFAULT UNDER A FRAUD THEORY, ONLY A BREACH OF CONTRACT THEORY WAS AVAILABLE (FIRST DEPT).
IN AN ACTION FOR A LICENSE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 881 TO ALLOW PETITIONER ACCESS TO RESPONDENTS’ ABUTTING BUILDING TO FACILITATE CONSTRUCTION WORK ON PETITIONER’S BUILDING, RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO LICENSE FEES, ATTORNEY’S FEES, ENGINEERING FEES, ETC., ASSOCIATED WITH PROTECTING THEIR BUILDING AND TO COMPENSATE FOR INTERFERERENCE WITH THE USE OF THEIR BUILDING, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THERE IS ANY DAMAGE TO RESPONDENTS’ BUILDING (FIRST DEPT).
THE JURY’S FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS NEGLIGENT BUT THAT DEFENDANT WAS 100% RESPONSIBLE WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; ALLOWING PLAINTIFF’S DOCTOR TO TESTIFY DEFENDANT’S DOCTOR WAS HIRED BY AN INSURANCE COMPANY, WITHOUT GIVING A CURATIVE INSTRUCTION, WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE WHEN HE FELL FROM A LADDER, NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF TAX RETURNS AFTER THE PARTIES’ FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THE DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; THE FAILURE TO RESPOND TO A PALPABLY IMPROPER DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION, I.E. A DEMAND FOR TAX RETURNS, DOES NOT WAIVE THE ABILITY TO OBJECT TO THE DEMAND ON APPEAL; DEFENDANT MAY RENEW THE MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF THE TAX RETURNS IF THE REQUIRED SHOWINGS ARE MADE (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

PURSUANT TO THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS ARE RESPONSIBLE... ALTHOUGH THE FREE-STANDING BRACE FRAME WAS AT THE SAME LEVEL AS PLAINTIFF AT...