You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN REPAIR NOT MAINTENANCE AND THE LADDER DID NOT...

PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN REPAIR NOT MAINTENANCE AND THE LADDER DID NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION FROM A FALL; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

image_pdfPDF Friendly Versionimage_printPrint Friendly Version

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s (Markou’s) motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff was troubleshooting a problem with lighting when his ladder slid sideways. He jumped off the ladder and landed on his feet to avoid hitting his head on the ground. The plaintiff made out a prima facie case that he was engaged in a protected activity (repair rather than routine maintenance) and the ladder did not provide adequate protection:

… [W]e find that plaintiffs established that Markou was engaged in a protected activity under Labor Law § 240 (1), in that he was attempting to repair the overhead lighting system in the cold storage area of defendant’s premises … . …  Notwithstanding Supreme Court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion, the court correctly concluded that plaintiffs, through the deposition testimony and sworn affidavit of their expert, sustained their prima facie burden of showing that the ladder was not “so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection” to Markou (Labor Law § 240 [1]), causing him to fall and sustain injuries. Markou v Sano-Rubin Constr. Co., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 02144, Third Dept 4-2-20

 

/by
You might also like
FINDING THAT CLAIMANT WAS CAPABLE OF PERFORMING LIGHT WORK WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
Cell Phone In Possession of Inmate Met the Definition of “Dangerous Contraband” in the Context of a “Promoting Prison Contraband” Charge
Victim’s Mother Should Not Have Been Allowed to Speak at Sentencing Because Defendant Convicted Only of Possession of Weapon, Not the Killing of the Victim/Failure to Inform Defendant of Pending Criminal Charges Against Prosecution Witnesses Not Error
FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, JUROR WAS A LONG-TERM FRIEND OF AN INVESTIGATOR WORKING ON DEFENDANT’S CASE.
NURSE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF COMPANY WHICH DOES HEALTH SCREENING OF EMPLOYEES OF CORPORATE CLIENTS.
Waiver of Indictment and Guilty Plea Invalid—Superior Court Information Charged a Greater Offense than that Charged in the Original Misdemeanor Information
Competing Expert Affidavits Raised a Question of Fact About Whether the Speed of Defendant’s Vehicle Was a Proximate Cause of the Accident—Plaintiff’s Vehicle Was Struck Broadside by Defendant’s Vehicle When Plaintiff Pulled Into Traffic–Supreme Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment to Defendant Reversed
Spontaneous Statements Made After Request for Counsel Properly Admitted—911 Call Properly Admitted as an Excited Utterance

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2020 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-NURSE WHO WAS ASSAULTED BY A PATIENT WAS... CLAIMANT ADEQUATELY IDENTIFIED THE RULING OBJECTED TO IN HER APPLICATION FOR...