You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS NOT WEARING A HARNESS AND FELL FROM A ROOF; THE FACT THAT...

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT WEARING A HARNESS AND FELL FROM A ROOF; THE FACT THAT HARNESSES MAY HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Although plaintiff was a ground worker the on roofing job, he fell from the roof alleging that a toe board “gave out.” The fact that plaintiff was not wearing a harness, in the face of allegations harnesses were available, was not enough to defeat plaintiff’s motion. The dissenters argued the evidence that all the toe boards were in tact after the accident raised a question of fact whether that safety device failed:

… [P]laintiff met his initial burden on that part of the motion by establishing that his ” injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential’ ” … . Specifically, plaintiff submitted his deposition testimony, wherein he stated that the toe board failed, causing him to fall from the roof. He also testified that he was not provided with a harness and that there were no available harnesses nearby. …

The ” presence of [other safety devices] somewhere at the worksite’ does not [alone] satisfy defendants’ duty to provide appropriate safety devices” … . …

… “[T]he mere failure by plaintiff to follow safety instructions” does not render plaintiff the sole proximate cause of his injuries  … . The evidence presented by defendants established only that plaintiff possibly failed to follow safety instructions, not that he outright refused to “use available, safe and appropriate equipment” … . Defendants failed to demonstrate that plaintiff ” chose for no good reason not to’ ” wear a safety harness … . At most, plaintiff’s “alleged conduct would amount only to comparative fault and thus cannot bar recovery under the statute” … . Schutt v Bookhagen, 2020 NY Slip Op 04651, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

You might also like
AN AFFIDAVIT WITH A PARTY STATEMENT AND A NON-PARTY AFFIDAVIT WHICH WERE NOT DISCLOSED SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN OPPOSTION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE (FOURTH DEPT)
Criteria for Non-Negligent Explanation for Striking Vehicle from Behind Described​​​​
PLAINTIFF LAW FIRM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO REPRESENT ITSELF IN ITS SUIT FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AGAINST A FORMER CLIENT; ALTHOUGH THE ATTORNEYS DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH THE FORMER CLIENT WERE DISQUALIFIED, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE TESTIMONY OF THE DISQUALIFIED ATTORNEYS WOULD PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF LAW FIRM SUCH THAT DISQUALICATION OF THE ENTIRE FIRM WAS WARRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Abuse of Discretion to Deny Defendant’s Request for New Defense Counsel—Request Was Supported by Specific Legitimate Concerns and Was Joined by Defense Counsel
THE OFFICER WHO CONVINCED DEFENDANT TO CONSENT TO THE SEARCH TOLD THE DEFENDANT HE WOULD BE HAPPY TO APPLY FOR A WARRANT BUT DEFENDANT WOULD BE DETAINED UNTIL THE WARRANT WAS PROCURED; BECAUSE THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A SEARCH WARRANT, THE OFFICER’S STATEMENT WAS MISLEADING; DEFENDANT’S CONSENT TO SEARCH WAS NOT VOLUNTARILY GIVEN (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA WAS VACATED BECAUSE IT WAS INDUCED BY THE JUDGE’S PROMISE THAT ALL THE COURT’S ORDERS COULD BE APPEALED; IN FACT, THE DEFENDANT’S CONTENTION THAT TWO COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT WERE DUPLICITOUS COULD NOT BE RAISED ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).
A CRUCIAL DOCUMENT SUBMITTED TO PROVE THE AMOUNT OF A MEDICAID LIEN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS A BUSINESS RECORD; THE DOCUMENT WAS NOT CERTIFIED BY AN EMPLOYEE FAMILIAR WITH THE BUSINESS PRACTICES OF THE ENTITY WHICH PROVIDED THE DATA COLLECTED IN THE DOCUMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
People Did Not Meet Burden of Going Forward at Suppression Hearing

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

THE TOWN’S APPROVAL OF CHANGES TO A WIND-TURBINE PROJECT WITHOUT A SECOND... BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S...