You are here: / / PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY FELL SIX FEET FROM A SCAFFOLD WITHOUT GUARD RAILS;...

PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY FELL SIX FEET FROM A SCAFFOLD WITHOUT GUARD RAILS; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s summary judgment motion on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should not have been granted, defendant’s (Henry Street’s) motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law 200 cause of action should have been granted, and defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action was properly denied. Plaintiff fell approximate six feet for a scaffold which did not have guard rails:

The plaintiff failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the scaffolding at issue provided proper protection under Labor Law § 240(1) … . …

Here, the plaintiff’s accident did not involve any dangerous or defective condition on Henry Street’s premises. Rather, the accident involved the manner in which the plaintiff performed his work … . Henry Street established, prima facie, that it did not have the authority to exercise supervision and control over the subject work … . In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of Henry Street’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging common-law negligence and a violation of Labor Law § 200 insofar as asserted against it. …

… [W]we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination to deny that branch of Henry Street’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing so much of the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) as was predicated upon an alleged violation of Industrial Code provision 12 NYCRR 23-5.1(b) insofar as asserted against it. That section provides that “[t]he footing or anchorage for every scaffold erected on or supported by the ground, grade or equivalent surface shall be sound, rigid, capable of supporting the maximum load intended to be imposed thereon without settling or deformation and shall be secure against movement in any direction.” Henry Street failed to sustain its prima facie burden of demonstrating that Industrial Code provision 12 NYCRR 23-5.1(b) was either factually inapplicable to this case or was satisfied … . Medina-Arana v Henry St. Prop. Holdings, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 05199, Second Dept 9-30-20

 

You might also like
Proof at Trial Did Not Sufficiently Pinpoint Time of the Alleged Sexual Offenses—Convictions Vacated
Decedent’s Acknowledgment of Paternity of Nonmarital Child Precluded Objections to Distribution by Sibling
HERE PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY OFFERED A DETAILED, CREDIBLE EXPLANATION OF THE LAW OFFICE FAILURE WHICH RESULTED IN MISSING THE DEADLINE FOR PROVIDING DISCOVERY, AS WELL AS THE DEMONSTRATION OF POTENTIALLY MERITORIOUS CAUSES OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO ENFORCE THE PRECLUSION ORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A HOME TO RETRIEVE A HANDGUN DEFENDANT HAD THROWN UNDER A CHAIR IN THE PRESENCE OF THE POLICE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER ANY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, THE PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE OFFICER DID NOT KNOW WHAT THE DEFENDANT HAD THROWN UNDER THE CHAIR, THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS IN CUSTODY WHEN THE OFFICER REENTERED THE HOME TO LOOK UNDER THE CHAIR (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST THE PORT AUTHORITY, THE APPLICABLE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT THE NOTICE OF CLAIM MUST BE SERVED AT LEAST 60 DAYS BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION (NOT 60 DAYS AFTER THE ACCRUAL OF THE ACTION); THEREFORE THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS TIMELY SERVED (SECOND DEPT). ​
AN ELECTRICAL SUBCONTRACTOR WHICH IS NOT LICENSED IN NEW YORK CITY CANNOT SUE FOR PAYMENT FOR WORK DONE IN THE CITY AND CANNOT FORECLOSE ON RELATED MECHANIC’S LIENS (SECOND DEPT). ​
AN AFFIDAVIT WITHOUT THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS ATTACHED DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BANK’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
INJURY FROM A CHAIN-LINK FENCE AT A CONSTRUCTION SITE WHICH BLEW OVER ONTO PLAINTIFFS NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) OR 241 (6); QUESTIONS OF FACT RE: LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (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

THE CHILD SUPPORT PROVISIONS OF THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THE DIVORCE... PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A HAZARD INHERENT IN THE JOB HE WAS HIRED TO DO; HIS...