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
SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD NOT HAVE AWARDED CHILD SUPPORT TO FATHER; MOTHER WAS ENTITLED TO ARREARS UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE (FOURTH DEPT).
ATTEMPTED ASSAULT IN THE FIRST DEGREE COULD NOT SERVE AS A PREDICATE FOR CONVICTION OF CRIMINAL USE OF A FIREARM IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO ALLOW EVIDENCE OF TWO FORGED CHECKS AT THE SECOND FORGERY TRIAL BECAUSE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN ACQUITTED OF THE CHARGES RELATED TO THOSE CHECKS IN THE FIRST TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).
THE UNAMBIGUOUS INSURANCE POLICY DID NOT INCLUDE COVERAGE FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS INCOME AND THE POLICY MUST BE ENFORCED AS WRITTEN (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT COULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH OF HIS PERSON, HE WAS NOT, IN FACT, UNDER ARREST; THEREFORE THE KEY FOB AND THE FIREARM FOUND IN DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT AFFIRM ON ANY ALTERNATIVE BASIS (FOURTH DEPT).
DISCOVERY REQUESTS AIMED AT AN ISSUE WHICH WAS ADMITTED BY DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT FOR THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A MEMO IN THE RECORD DEMONSTRATING THE ISSUE WAS PRESERVED, THE ARGUMENT WAS REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY THE OFFICER’S ENTRY OF THE RESIDENCE AND SEIZURE OF A SWITCHBLADE; SWITCHBLADE AND STATEMENTS RELATING TO THE SWITCHBLADE SUPPRESSED; IN ADDITION, AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT WAS DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT, WHO WAS BEING TREATED AT THE HOSPITAL, WAS IN CUSTODY AND HAD NOT BEEN INFORMED OF HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS; THE DEFENDANT CALLED A POLICE OFFICER OVER AND SAID “I’M BEAT UP;” THE OFFICER THEN ASKED “WHAT HAPPENED?”; DEFENDANT’S ANSWER WAS NOT SPONTANEOUS AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH 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

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