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
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PAY WAGES UNDER THE “NO WAGE THEFT LOOPHOLE ACT” AND RETALIATION (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT PRODUCE AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS PLAINTIFF’S SPECIAL EMPLOYER; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S PERSONAL INJURY ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY HIS ELECTION OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS (FIRST DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL, CREMATORY AND FUNERAL CHAPEL RELIED IN GOOD FAITH ON THE INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY DECEDENT’S DOMESTIC PARTNER; PLAINTIFFS, DECEDENT’S ADULT CHILDREN, RAISED NO OBJECTION TO THE ARRANGEMENTS MADE BY THE DOMESTIC PARTNER UNTIL A MONTH AFTER DEATH; THE “INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHTS OF SEPULCHER” ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
LONG-ARM JURISDICTION DID NOT REACH AN AUDITING FIRM IN THE UK AND CONVERSION CAUSES OF ACTION FAILED BECAUSE THE CONVERTED FUNDS WERE NOT IDENTIFIABLE AFTER THEY HAD BEEN INVESTED.
Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine Applied
BY CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION DEFENSE COUNSEL EFFECTIVELY WAIVED AN INITIAL ‘TRACK’ HEARING PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20, A ‘CRITICAL STAGE’ OF THE PROCEEDINGS AFTER A NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT PLEA, DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE, CPL 330.20 HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY DEMONSTRATE ​DEFENDANT’S AGENTS TRANSACTED BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMERGENCY DEFENSE APPLIED TO A REAR-END COLLISION.

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...