You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER WALKING ON THE REBAR GRID WAS AN INHERENT RISK...
, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER WALKING ON THE REBAR GRID WAS AN INHERENT RISK OF THE JOB AND WHETHER THE GRID WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION PRECLUDED A DIRECTED VERDICT IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined questions of fact for the jury precluded the directed verdict (CPLR 4401) for the defendants in this Labor Law 200 action. Plaintiff was working as a surveyor at a construction site. He was walking across a rebar grid when one of his legs fell through. There were questions of fact whether walking on the rebar grid was an inherent risk of his job and whether the grid was a dangerous condition. Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the directed verdict (CPLR 4404) should have been granted:

Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or general contractor to provide construction site workers with a safe place to work … . The duty, however, is subject to recognized exceptions … . It does not extend to hazards which are part of or inherent in the very work which the contractor is to perform, or where the contractor is engaged for the specific purpose of repairing the defect … .

Here, in directing a verdict in favor of the defendants on the issue of liability, the Supreme Court improperly decided the factual questions of whether traversing an uncovered rebar grid was an inherent risk in the injured plaintiff’s work as a surveyor, and whether the uncovered rebar grid was a dangerous condition under the circumstances presented. The record demonstrates that the plaintiffs’ evidence made out a prima facie case, and that disputed factual issues existed which should have been resolved by the jury. Since the court failed to draw “every favorable inference” in favor of the plaintiffs and because the court resolved disputed issues of fact … , the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new trial on the issue of liability. Vitale v Astoria Energy II, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 01381, Second Dept 2-26-20

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY ORDERS WAS WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS BUT DID NOT WARRANT SUPREME COURT’S STRIKING THE COMPLAINT; THE APPELLATE DIVISION IMPOSED EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS AND ORDERED PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL TO PAY DEFENDANT $3000 (SECOND DEPT). ​
AN AFFIDAVIT WITHOUT THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS ATTACHED DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BANK’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Fact that Driver’s Negligence Was Deemed “Sole Proximate Cause” of Passenger’s Injury Did Not Warrant the Dismissal of Claims Against the Other Driver Involved in the Collision
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE AND A HEARING WERE NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SEPARATION AGREEMENT WAS INVALID, SUPPORT AND MAINTENANCE AGREED TO BY PLAINTIFF WIFE WAS LESS THAN PLAINTIFF’S APARTMENT RENTAL (SECOND DEPT).
CONVICTION OF ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BASED UPON THE ACQUITTALS ON THE REMAINING 27 COUNTS OF CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACT, COURT CANNOT CONSIDER DEFENDANT’S ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT FOR AFFIRMANCE ON AN APPEAL BROUGHT BY THE PEOPLE (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED.
FAMILY COURT, AFTER A NONJURY TRIAL, AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY TO FATHER WHO RESIDES IN FLORIDA; THE CHILDREN APPEALED; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT REVERSED AND AWARDED SOLE CUSTODY TO MOTHER, IN PART BECAUSE FAMILY COURT DID NOT CONSIDER THE WISHES OF THE CHILDREN AGES 12 AND 15 (SECOND DEPT).
PORTIONS OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED AS UNTIMELY; THE PORTION OF THE UNTIMELY MOTION WHICH HAD BEEN TIMELY RAISED BY ANOTHER DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY RELIED ON INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING THAT ELECTRICAL POWER BE SHUT DOWN TO PROTECT ELECTRICAL WORKERS (SECOND 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

HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE TREATING EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE... DEFENDANT LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY FAILED TO FILE ITS CURRENT ADDRESS WITH...