You are here: / / PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1),...

PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1), LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE, EVEN IF PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN WHERE HE WAS AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment against the general contractor (Sweeney) on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action in this falling object case, even if plaintiff was not supposed to be in the area when he was struck (comparative negligence is inapplicable). Plaintiff was also entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence claims against the subcontractor (Structure Tech) whose employee caused the object to fall. There was a question of fact whether the Structure Tech employee was instructed by Sweeney to cut the object which fell, which would make Sweeney liable for the Labor Law 200 and negligence causes of action as well:

Plaintiff should have been awarded summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim as against Sweeney because there was no overhead protection provided to plaintiff … . Thus even if, as Structure Tech’s superintendent testified, plaintiff was in an area of the worksite where he was not supposed to be at the time of his accident, this would at most constitute comparative negligence which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . …

Plaintiff also should have been awarded summary judgment on his Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims as against Structure Tech. As a subcontractor and, therefore, the statutory agent of the general contractor, Structure Tech may be held liable pursuant to Labor Law § 200 and under common-law negligence for injuries caused by a dangerous condition that it caused or created or of which it had actual or constructive notice … . Since no party disputes that a Structure Tech employee was responsible for dislodging the baluster and allowing it to fall and strike plaintiff, Structure Tech is liable to plaintiff under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence.

However, an issue of fact exists as to Sweeney’s liability to plaintiff under these claims based on the testimony of Structure Tech’s superintendent that it was, in fact, Sweeney’s superintendent who instructed Structure Tech to cut the baluster that ultimately struck plaintiff. If credited, this testimony could support a finding that Sweeney actually exercised supervisory control over the worksite so as to trigger liability under these claims … . Hewitt v NY 70th St. LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 03280, First Dept 6-11-20

 

You might also like
THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION REQUIRED PLAINTIFF TO FURNISH PAY STUBS AS A PREREQUISITE FOR HER RECEIVING CHILD SUPPORT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD THAT INFORMAL TIMESHEETS WERE THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF PAY STUBS (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S LADDER WAS PLACED ON A MUDDY WATERY SURFACE IN A TUNNEL AND IT SLIPPED OUT FROM UNDER HIM, PLAINTIFFS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSULATE A PIPE BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE HEATING SYSTEM, INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY CONTACT WITH THE HOT PIPE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT TRIPPED OVER A PIECE OF PIPE STICKING OUT OF THE FLOOR AND FELL INTO THE UNGUARDED ELEVATOR MECHANISM; THE DEFECT WAS NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
Insurer Must Demonstrate Compliance with 30-Day Notice Requirement Re: an Independent Medical Examination (IME)
NEW JERSEY FORGED INSTRUMENT CONVICTION WAS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A NEW YORK FELONY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE BASIS OF SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS (FIRST DEPT).
Court Has Inherent Authority to Reinstate Indictment After Dismissal for Legal Insufficiency
THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION WAS BASED UPON A LEASE ENTERED BY A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY THE ASSETS OF WHICH WERE PURCHASED BY THE TWO DEFENDANT LIMITED LIABILTY COMPANIES; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE THEORY THAT THE DEFENDANTS CONSTITUTED A “MERE CONTINUATION” OF THE ORIGINAL LESSEE’S BUSINESS; THERE WAS A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (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

CAYMAN ISLANDS LAW APPLIES IN THIS FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE ACTION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED... VENUE WAS IMPROPER; DEFENDANTS FOLLOWED THE STATUTORY PROCEDURE AND MOVED FOR...