You are here: / / WIRES WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO TRIP AND FALL WERE INTEGRAL TO THE WORK...

WIRES WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO TRIP AND FALL WERE INTEGRAL TO THE WORK BEING PERFORMED AND CANNOT THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED DEBRIS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE; THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should have been dismissed. Plaintiff fell when his foot became entangled in electrical wires hanging from the ceiling. The wires were integral to the work being performed. Therefore the Industrial Code provision prohibiting the accumulation of debris did not apply. However the common law negligence (dangerous condition) cause of action properly survived summary judgment:

To prevail on a cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6), a plaintiff “must set forth a violation of a specific rule or regulation promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department of Labor” … . Here, the plaintiff alleged a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2), which requires that “[t]he parts of floors, platforms and similar areas where persons work or pass shall be kept free from accumulations of dirt and debris and from scattered tools and materials and from sharp projections insofar as may be consistent with the work being performed.” However, 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2) is “inapplicable [where] the material over which [a plaintiff] alleges he [or she] tripped was integral to the work being performed” … . Martinez v 281 Broadway Holdings, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 02773, Second Dept 5-13-20

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER TENANT ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR TRADE FIXTURES ON PROPERTY TO WHICH VILLAGE ACQUIRED TITLE BY EMINENT DOMAIN.
PEOPLE’S APPLICATION FOR AN UPWARD DEPARTURE NOT SUPPORTED BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE; EVIDENCE DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED BUT NEVER INDICTED OR CONVICTED DOES NOT MEET THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED “WITH PREJUDICE” BECAUSE A FUTURE CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES MAY WARRANT MODIFICATION (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S DOUBLE-PARKED TRUCK MERELY FURNISHED THE OCCASION FOR THE MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT OR WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT; PLAINTIFF FLIPPED OVER THE MOTORCYCLE BRAKING TO AVOID COLLIDING WITH THE TRUCK (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO CONDUCT AN IN CAMERA INTERVIEW WITH THE CHILD BEFORE DENYING MOTHER’S PETITION FOR IN-PERSON PARENTAL ACCESS (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS FOUND OUT WELL INTO THE CONTRACT FOR GAS-MAIN WORK THAT THE REQUESTED INSURANCE COVERAGE HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED; THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE IT DEPENDED ON A CIRCUMSTANCE THAT MAY NOT OCCUR; THE NEGLIGENT PROCUREMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED FOR LACK OF DAMAGES; THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS SUPPORTED BY NOMINAL DAMAGES; THE FRAUD AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION CAUSES OF ACTION WERE SUPPORTED BY A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE INSURANCE BROKER AND DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE (SECOND DEPT).
THE INJURED PARTY WAS STRUCK WITH A BATON IN AN ALTERCATION OUTSIDE A BAR; IT WAS ALLEGED THE INJURY WAS ACCIDENTAL; THE INSURER SOUGHT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT RE: THE OBLIGATION TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE INCIDENT FELL OUTSIDE THE COVERAGE OF THE POLICY (NO DISCLAIMER REQUIRED) OR WHETHER THE INCIDENT WAS SUBJECT TO A POLICY EXCLUSION (TIMELY DISCLAIMER REQUIRED) (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SENT THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE TO BOTH BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE, A VIOLATION OF THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” RULE (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

DIFFERENT STANDARDS OF PROOF OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NY CITY... MANUFACTURER AND SELLER OF THE PRODUCT WHICH ALLEGEDLY INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF...