You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A FALLING OBJECT; COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT...

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A FALLING OBJECT; COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A DEFENSE TO A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1), 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER ONE OF THE DEFENDANT’S EXERCISED SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE SITE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action stemming from his being struck with a falling object. The allegation plaintiff should not have been where he was is an allegation of comparative negligence which is not a defense. Plaintiff also should have been awarded summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action against the statutory agent of the general contractor on the ground the agent caused the dangerous condition:

Plaintiff should have been awarded summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim as against Sweeney and Structure Tech. Sweeney, as general contractor, and Structure Tech, as subcontractor and statutory agent of Sweeney, may be held strictly liable for failing to provide overhead protection to plaintiff … . Thus even if, as Structure Tech’s superintendent testified, plaintiff was in an area of the worksite where he was not supposed to be at the time of his accident, this would at most constitute comparative negligence which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . Accordingly, the issue of their liability under Labor Law § 241(6) is academic … .

Plaintiff also should have been awarded summary judgment on his Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims as against Structure Tech. As the statutory agent of the general contractor, Structure Tech may be held liable pursuant to Labor Law § 200 and under common-law negligence for injuries caused by a dangerous condition that it caused or created or of which it had actual or constructive notice … . Since no party disputes that a Structure Tech employee was responsible for dislodging the baluster and allowing it to fall and strike plaintiff, Structure Tech is liable to plaintiff under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence.

However, an issue of fact exists as to Sweeney’s liability to plaintiff under these claims based on the testimony of Structure Tech’s superintendent that it was, in fact, Sweeney’s superintendent who instructed Structure Tech to cut the baluster that ultimately struck plaintiff. If credited, this testimony could support a finding that Sweeney actually exercised supervisory control over the worksite so as to trigger liability under these claims … . Hewitt v NY 70th St. LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 05853, First Dept 10-20-20

 

You might also like
FORMER GOLDMAN SACHS EMPLOYEE’S CONVICTION FOR UNLAWFUL USE OF SCIENTIFIC MATERIAL (COPYING PROPRIETARY COMPUTER SOURCE CODE) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, VERDICT REINSTATED.
PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY THAT THE STEP LADDER WOBBLED CAUSING HIM TO FALL WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION, DESPITE THE LACK OF WITNESSES TO THE FALL, HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN THE ACCIDENT REPORT, AND A CONCLUSORY EXPERT AFFIDAVIT (FIRST DEPT).
WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID; DESCRIPTION OF THE EXTENT OF THE WAIVER WAS ERRONEOUS; NO ASSURANCE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHTS WAIVED BY GUILTY PLEA AND APPELLATE RIGHTS.
JUDICIAL DIVERSION PROGRAM AVAILABLE TO DEFENDANTS CHARGED WITH BOTH QUALIFYING OFFENSES AND OFFENSES WHICH ARE NEITHER QUALIFYING NOR DISQUALIFYING.
IN THIS “RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES” AND “COLLATERALIZED DEBT OBLIGATION” ACTION, PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANTS’ FRAUD, AS OPPOSED TO THE 2008-2009 FINANCIAL CRISIS, CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S LOSS, AND WHETHER AN OMISSION ON DEFENDANTS’ PART WAS AN ACTIONABLE MISREPRESENTATION; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A DRUG, WHICH CAN DISSOLVE BLOOD CLOTS IN MINUTES, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMINISTERED TO PLAINTIFF WHO WAS SUFFERING FROM A PULMONARY EMBOLISM UPON ADMISSION; SUPREME COURT REVERSED; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FIRST DEPT).
THE INSURED MISREPRESENTED HER HOME ADDRESS AND THE INSURERS DISCLAIMED COVERAGE; THE CONCLUSORY AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE INSURERS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE (UNDERWRITING MANUALS, RULES, BULLETINS) AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE MISREPRESENTATION WAS MATERIAL (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT PRODUCE A SURVEILLANCE VIDEO DEPICTING PLAINTIFF’S ACCIDENT UNTIL AFTER PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION; DEFENDANTS ARE PRECLUDED FROM INTRODUCING THE VIDEO IN EVIDENCE (FIRST 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

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE... AN EYEWITNESS TO PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL TESTIFIED PLAINTIFF TOLD HER...