You are here: / / NO NEED TO SHOW THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION;...

NO NEED TO SHOW THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION; IT WAS SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THE LADDER WAS UNSECURED AND FELL WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY DEBRIS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff was using an unsecured ladder when he was struck by debris causing him and the ladder to fall. There was no need to show the ladder was defective. It was sufficient to show the ladder was not secured:

The undisputed facts show prima facie that defendants violated Labor Law § 240(1) by failing to provide adequate safety devices to plaintiff, who was injured doing demolition work when the unsecured ladder he was using to remove a ceiling was struck by a piece of falling metal debris, causing him and the ladder to fall to the ground … . The record lacks any conflicting evidence relevant to the issue of whether Labor Law 240 (1) was violated, sufficient to raise a material issue of fact. The issues of fact relied upon by the motion court in denying partial summary judgment are immaterial to the issue of whether defendants’ violation of section 240(1) was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff was not required to show that the ladder he was using was defective, where testimony established prima facie that defendant failed to provide a safety device to insure the ladder would remain upright while plaintiff used it … . Avila v Saint David’s Sch., 2020 NY Slip Op 05571, First Dept 10-8-20

 

You might also like
EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENDANT CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY AND THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN NASSAU COUNTY WHERE THE CORPORATION DID HAVE AN OFFICE, VENUE WAS APPROPRIATELY PLACED IN NEW YORK COUNTY BASED ON DEFENDANT’S CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION (FIRST DEPT).
MISNOMER DID NOT PREJUDICE THE CITY; CITY’S MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED AND PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MOTION TO AMEND THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
ACCIDENT DID NOT INVOLVE AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTORS DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OF THE PLAINTIFF, THE AREA OR THE WORK, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Complaint Sufficiently Alleged Facts to Support Piercing the Corporate Veil
DEFENDANT RESTAURANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE GREASY OR SLIPPERY CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE PLACED TIME AND TESTIMONY RESTRICTIONS ON THE HEARING; ORDER REVERSED AND NEW HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
STRIKING THE ANSWER WAS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH MULTIPLE DISCOVERY ORDERS OVER A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS, PURELY LEGAL ISSUE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL CAN BE CONSIDERED IF THE RECORD IS SUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT).
WRIT OF PROHIBITION PROPER REMEDY FOR TRIAL COURT’S ERRONEOUS EVIDENTIARY RULING, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE IN THIS CRIMINAL CASE.

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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PRESUMPTION A CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT (CD) HAS BEEN... FALL WHILE UNLOADING A FLATBED TRUCK CAN BE A COVERED ACTIVITY AND INVOLVED...