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
DISAGREEING WITH THE FIRST DEPARTMENT, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD THAT DAMAGES FOR “PRE-IMPACT TERROR” ARE NOT APPROPRIATE IN A MED MAL CASE; HERE PLAINTIFF SUFFERED A HEART ATTACK IN 2008 AND DIED IN 2011 (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE FAMILY COURT HAD EXCLUSIVE AND CONTINUING JURISDICTION OVER THIS CUSTODY CASE, MOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY DISMISSED BECAUSE FATHER AND CHILD RESIDE OUT-OF-STATE (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT WHEN PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MEET A DEADLINE FOR A DEPOSITION (SECOND DEPT).
Corporate Officer May Be Personally Liable for Torts Committed in the Performance of Corporate Duties/Criteria for Determining a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action (Where Documentary Evidence Is Submitted) Explained
FAILURE TO ADDRESS EVERY ELEMENT OF THE THEORIES OF RECOVERY ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, I.E., COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE AND RES IPSA LOQUITUR, REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
THE PETITIONERS BROUGHT A HYBRID ARTICLE 78/DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION CHALLENGING A LOCAL LAW PROHIBITING SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROPERTIES; THE COURT NOTED THAT THE SUMMARY PROCEDURE AVAILABLE UNDER ARTICLE 78 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE DECLARATORY-JUDGMENT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
ASSIGNMENT OF AN INTEREST IN A JUDGMENT WAS VALID EVEN THOUGH THE PARTY WHO PAID THE ASSIGNOR HAD NOT BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE ASSIGNMENT, PAYMENT MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO THE ASSIGNOR TREATED AS IF MADE TO THE ASSIGNEE (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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...