You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE...

PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE; DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE JOB WAS NOT A HARD HAT JOB PRECLUDING DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined: (1) plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action stemming from his being struck by an unsecured heating duct during demolition; and (2) defendants (appellants) were not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action premised on plaintiff’s failure to wear a hard hat:

With respect to falling objects, liability is not limited to cases in which the falling object is in the process of being hoisted or secured … . Rather, “a plaintiff must show that the object fell . . . because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute” … . “To succeed on a cause of action under Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must establish that the defendant violated its duty and that the violation proximately caused the plaintiff’s injuries” … . The burden then shifts to the defendant to raise a triable issue of fact … . A worker’s comparative negligence is not a defense to a cause of action under Labor Law § 240(1) … . Rather, only where the worker’s own conduct is the sole proximate cause of the accident is recovery under Labor Law § 240(1) unavailable … .

Here, the plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on his Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action insofar as asserted against the owner and the general contractor by submitting evidence that while he was engaged in demolition work, he was injured when an unsecured HVAC duct fell and hit him, causing him to fall to the ground … . …

“In order to prevail on a Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action premised upon a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(c)(1), the plaintiff must establish that the job was a hard hat job, and that the plaintiff’s failure to wear a hard hat was a proximate cause of his injury” … . Here, the appellants failed to establish, prima facie, that this was not a hard hat job, and that the plaintiff’s lack of head protection did not play a role in the injuries he sustained when he was struck by the falling object. Aguilar v Graham Terrace, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 04906, Second Dept 9-16-20

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT ALLEGED ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS WAS IN NASSAU COUNTY BUT NEVER AMENDED ITS CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION WHICH DESIGNATED ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AS QUEENS COUNTY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CHANGE THE VENUE OF THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE FROM QUEENS TO NASSAU COUNTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER’S REFUSING TO CONSENT TO AN INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM AND HER DELAY IN SCHEDULING AN INDEPENDENT NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF THE CHILD DID NOT CONSTITUTE EDUCATIONAL OR MEDICAL NEGLECT, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Sufficiently Raised Issue of “Actual Innocence” in Motion to Vacate His Conviction to Warrant Hearing—Affidavits from Alibi Witnesses Identified Before Trial
THE 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT FOR FILING AND SERVING A NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY FOR WRONGFUL DEATH RUNS FROM THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR; HERE THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS TIMELY FOR THE WRONGFUL DEATH CAUSE OF ACTION; HOWEVER THE 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT FOR THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING AND PREIMPACT TERROR RUNS FROM THE DATE OF THE ACCIDENT; THE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN REJECTED AS UNTIMELY FOR THOSE TWO CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
ALLEGATION THE LADDER PLAINTIFF WAS USING SHIFTED FOR NO APPARENT REASON ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE “NOTICE OF INTENT TO FORECLOSE” FELL SHORT OF AN ACCELERATION OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT AND DID NOT TRIGGER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
LATE NOTIFICATION OF THE INSURER BY THE INSURED ABOUT AN ACTION AGAINST THE INSURED DOES NOT EXCUSE A LATE DISCLAIMER, TIMELINESS OF A DISCLAIMER DEPENDS ON WHEN THE INSURER FIRST LEARNED OF THE ACTION.
DEFENDANT MOTHER, WHO SUCCESSFULLY OBTAINED AN ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT, WAS JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM ARGUING PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A PARENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF VISITATION.

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

ISSUE WAS NEVER JOINED, THEREFORE THE ACTION COULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE... THREE OF THE FOUR VEHICULAR HOMICIDE COUNTS WERE MULTIPLICITOUS EVEN THOUGH...