You are here: / / A COMPONENT OF A TOWER CRANE WAS BEING HOISTED WHEN IT SWUNG TO THE SIDE...

A COMPONENT OF A TOWER CRANE WAS BEING HOISTED WHEN IT SWUNG TO THE SIDE AND PINNED PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on a Labor Law 241(6) cause of action:

The injured plaintiff allegedly was injured in the process of hoisting a component of the tower crane for assembly when the load, which had been stationary for several minutes, suddenly moved, swung to the side, struck the injured plaintiff, and pinned him against a plumber’s pipe. * * *

… [T]he plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability on so much of the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action as was predicated upon a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-8.1(f)(2)(i). The plaintiffs established, prima facie, that the load suddenly moved and caused the injured plaintiff’s injuries (see 12 NYCRR 23-8.1[f][2][i] … ). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as “[t]he fact that the plaintiff may have been the sole witness to the accident does not preclude the award of summary judgment in his favor” … , and “[a]ny comparative negligence on the part of the plaintiff does not preclude liability founded upon a violation of Labor Law § 241(6)” … . Wein v East Side 11th & 28th, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 05085, Second Dept 9-23-20

You might also like
Criteria for Derivative Neglect Finding Explained (Evidence Insufficient)
EVIDENCE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND MARIJUANA USE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO FIND THAT FATHER NEGLECTED THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
Emergency Doctrine Explained; Admissibility of Deposition Excerpts Re: Summary Judgment Motion Explained; Bicyclist Injured When Path Allegedly Blocked to Protect Child
DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY AND ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IMPROPERLY CUT OFF, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF PROPERLY ALLOWED TO AMEND THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN TO ADD A TREATING DOCTOR EMPLOYED BY A NAMED DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).
APPELLANT WAS NOT APPRISED OF AND DID NOT WAIVE HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL; ORDERS OF PROTECTION REVERSED.
THE LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE BANK WAS INSUFFICIENT; THEREFORE THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ASSERT THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT WHERE A DEFENDANT IS UNAWARE OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF A GUILTY PLEA AND THEREFORE DID NOT MOVE TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA ON THAT GROUND (SECOND 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

JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT WAS NOT WARRANTED;... A CAUSE OF ACTION MAY BE DISMISSED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (a) (4) BECAUSE IT...