You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN THE CEILING COLLAPSED WHILE HE WAS TAKING OUT...

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN THE CEILING COLLAPSED WHILE HE WAS TAKING OUT WALLS, THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) ,241(6) and 200 causes of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was in the process of taking down two bathroom walls when the ceiling collapsed:

To prevail on a Labor Law § 240(1) claim based on an injury resulting from the failure of a completed and permanent building structure (in this case, the collapse of a ceiling), a plaintiff must show that the failure of the structure in question was a foreseeable risk of the task he was performing, creating a need for protective devices of the kind enumerated in the statute … .

Here, there are issues of fact as to whether the ceiling was in such an advanced state of disrepair due to water damage that plaintiff’s work on the bathroom walls exposed him to a foreseeable risk of injury from an elevation-related hazard, the fall of the ceiling, and whether the absence of a type of protective device enumerated under Labor Law § 240(1) was a proximate cause of his injuries. Because the evidence of water stains on the bathroom ceiling could provide constructive notice of a dangerous condition, summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims was also improperly granted. …

Defendants failed to show that plaintiff was not engaged in demolition work to trigger Labor Law § 241(6). His task was part of a larger project that included the demolition of interior walls, “which altered the structural integrity of the building'”( … Industrial Code § 23-1.4[b][16]). Issues of fact exist as to whether Industrial Code § 23-3.3(b)(3) and (c), pertaining to demolition, were violated or whether any such violation was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Clemente v 205 W. 103 Owners Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 01117, First Dept 2-18-20

 

You might also like
ASSAULT AND BATTERY CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE POLICE DO NOT REQUIRE A SPECIAL DUTY OWED TO PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN A LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTION NEED NOT SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE; THE HEARSAY STATEMENTS REFERENCING OR ATTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).
EVEN WHERE, AS HERE, THE REVIEWING COURT WOULD HAVE DECIDED THE MATTER DIFFERENTLY, THE COURT MUST AFFIRM AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY’S RULING WHICH HAS A RATIONAL BASIS; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE PROOF PETITIONER RESIDED WITH HIS BROTHER IN THE MITCHELL-LAMA APARTMENT WAS SUFFICIENT AND PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO SUCCESSION RIGHTS (FIRST DEPT).
“Sophisticated and Well-Counseled Entity” Did Not Make Prima Facie Claim of Fraud; No Due Diligence Demonstrated
AFFIDAVITS NOT BASED ON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND NOT SUPPORTED BY CERTIFIED BUSINESS RECORDS HAVE NO PROBATIVE VALUE; HERE THE AFFIDAVITS FAILED TO PROVE DEFENDANT WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF RENTING TRUCKS SUCH THAT THE GRAVE’S AMENDMENT APPLIED, AND FAILED TO PROVE THE TRUCK WAS PROPERLY MAINTAINED; DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF INJURED HIS BACK WHEN HE LIFTED A HEAVY PIECE OF LUMBER TO ALLOW THE BLADES OF A FORKLIFT TO MOVE UNDER THE LUMBER; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER LABOR LAW 240 (1) WAS APPLICABLE (FIRST DEPT).
Passenger in Recreational Go-Kart Assumed the Risk of Injury Caused by Being “Bumped” by Another Go-Kart
DEFENDANT AND A WITNESS SAID THE LIGHT WAS RED, PLAINTIFF SAID THE LIGHT WAS GREEN, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS PRECLUDED, CREDIBILTY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED (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

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED ATTEMPTING TO ENTER A BUILDING FROM A SCAFFOLD THROUGH... RESPONDENT WAS A CUSTOMER OF PETITIONER SECURITIES CORPORATION WITHIN THE MEANING...