You are here: / / FALL AFTER STEPPING ON LOOSE PIPES NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1); LABOR...

FALL AFTER STEPPING ON LOOSE PIPES NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1); LABOR LAW 200 AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action based upon plaintiff’s fall when he stepped on a pile of loose pipes was properly dismissed. However the Labor Law 200 cause of action and the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action against some of the defendants should not have been dismissed:

The court correctly dismissed the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, as that statute does not cover a fall allegedly caused by stepping on a pile of unsecured pipes on the floor of a construction site … . …

The Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims should not be dismissed as against UA, Independent Mechanical, Intel Plumbing, and WeWork. The cause of plaintiff’s accident was not the manner in which his work was performed but a dangerous condition on the premises, i.e., the loose pipes that had been laid on the floor directly in front of a doorway … . …

… [T]he record does not support the summary dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim as against the UA and 401 Park defendants. Plaintiff’s testimony that his fall was caused by a pile of loose pipes obstructing the doorway presents an issue of fact as to whether the accident was caused by a tripping hazard in a passageway (Industrial Code [12 NYCRR] § 23-1.7[e][1] … ). There is also an issue of fact as to whether the accident was caused by a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2), since part of the floor where workers worked or passed was not kept free from scattered tools or materials … . In addition, there is an issue of fact as to whether the unsecured pipes, which were allegedly piled about two feet high directly in front of the doorway, were safely stored pursuant to 12 NYCRR 23-2.1(a)(1) … . Armental v 401 Park Ave. S. Assoc., LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 02154, First Dept 4-2-20

 

You might also like
Charging an Additional 10% Contingency Fee for the Appeal, On Top of the 33 1/3% Contingency Fee for the Trial, for a Total Contingency Fee of 43 1/3 %, Was Proper—Motion Court Did Not Have the Power to Alter the Fee Agreement Sua Sponte and the Motion Court No Longer Had Jurisdiction Over the Case When It Made the Alteration
Labor Law Suit for Gratuities Not Preempted by Labor Management Relations Act or Prohibited by Collective Bargaining Agreement
Son Entitled to Remain in Deceased Mother’s Apartment​
​ THE ATTEMPT TO HOLD DEFENDANT PLUMBING COMPANY LIABLE FOR THE LEAK WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL RELIED ON PURE SPECULATION; THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR FAILS BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE BUILDING’S PLUMBING (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RENEW THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT WHEN ADDITIONAL GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WAS RELEASED TO THE DEFENSE BECAUSE THE JUDGE HAD REVIEWED THE ENTIRE GRAND JURY MINUTES BEFORE DENYING THE MOTION; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE MOTION COURT WOULD HAVE BENEFITTED FROM ANOTHER ARGUMENT BASED ON THE NEWLY RELEASED EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).
Causes of Action Based Upon Allegations of Violations of Martin Act Concerning Fraud in the Selling of Securities Allowed to Go Forward— Supreme Court Should Not Have Evaluated Merits on Motion to Dismiss
THE MAJORITY, LAYING OUT ITS FACTUAL FINDINGS IN GREAT DETAIL, AFFIRMED FAMILY COURT’S MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY RULING ALLOWING MOTHER TO RELOCATE WITH THE CHILD; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE MAJORITY IGNORED SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WHICH CONFLICTED WITH AND CONTRADICTIED ITS RULINGS, LAYING OUT THAT EVIDENCE IN GREAT DETAIL; ESSENTIALLY THE DISSENT ARGUED THAT THE CONFLICTING AND CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE IGNORED BY THE MAJORITY DEMONSTRATES MOTHER DID NOT MEET HER BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE RELOCATION WAS IN THE “BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD” (FIRST DEPT).
PURSUANT TO THE SPECIAL FACTS DOCTRINE, THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR THIS “AS IS” SALE OF A BUILDING RELEASED THE SELLER FROM LIABILIITY FOR NEGLIGENCE AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION, BUT NOT FOR FRAUD (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

CLAIMANT ADEQUATELY IDENTIFIED THE RULING OBJECTED TO IN HER APPLICATION FOR... THE TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT AND DEFAMATION CAUSES OF ACTION WERE...