You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TWO BY FOUR PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER WAS DEBRIS,...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TWO BY FOUR PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER WAS DEBRIS, WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE A VIABLE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION, OR PART OF A SAFETY BARRICADE, WHICH WOULD NOT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined there was a question of fact whether the two by four plaintiff tripped over was debris, which would constitute a viable Labor Law 241(6) cause of action, or part of a safety barricade, which would not:

Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241(6) claim based on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7(e)(2) should be denied. This Industrial Code provision requires work areas to be kept free of debris and scattered tools and materials “insofar as may be consistent with the work being performed,” and thus is not violated when the condition that caused the plaintiff to trip or slip was integral to the work being performed, such as the presence of materials placed in the work area intentionally …. The staircase that plaintiff was approaching was installed by the ironworkers, and there is testimony that it was not opened for use until days after plaintiff’s accident. Plaintiff acknowledged that the staircase had not been completed at the time of his accident, that a barricade remained in place around three sides of the opening in the floor, and that an ironworker was working on the fourth side at the top of the stairs where the barricade had been removed. Under the circumstances, issues of fact exist as to whether the two-by-four over which plaintiff tripped was part of the barricade blocking the staircase opening in the floor and therefore integral to the work at the time of his accident, even if the barricade had been pulled back or removed from the front of the stairs where an iron worker was working … . Rudnitsky v Macy’s Real Estate, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 07325, First Dept 12-8-20

 

You might also like
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE IN AN INSURANCE POLICY ARE STRICTLY CONSTRUED AGAINST THE INSURER; HERE DAMAGE CAUSED BY “INTERIOR TILE” WORK WAS COVERED UNDER THE POLICY; IN PREPARING THE BATHROOM FLOOR FOR TILING THE INSURED USED WELDING EQUIPMENT WHICH CAUSED A FIRE; THE INSURER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PREPARATORY WORK WAS NOT ENCOMPASSED BY THE COVERAGE FOR “INTERIOR TILE” WORK (FIRST DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ENSURED DEFENDANT WAS KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY WAIVING THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE BEFORE ACCEPTING DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA; IN THE PLEA COLLOQUY DEFENDANT TOLD THE COURT HE WAS DRUNK AND DIDN’T KNOW WHAT HE WAS DOING (FIRST DEPT).
Because the Lease Authorized Landlord to Make Repairs, the Erection of Scaffolding Could Not Constitute a Partial Eviction; Occupant Not Named on the Lease Owes Rent Under a Quantum Meruit Theory
Two Dissenting Justices Found Defendant’s Sentence Excessive Under the Facts
Shareholders’ Requests for Documents for Investigation of Possible Wrongdoing by Corporation Were Facially Legitimate Under the Business Corporation Law (BCL) and Common Law–No Need for Shareholders to Bring a Shareholders’ Derivative Action to Procure the Documents
THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC DID NOT ENTITLE PLAINTIFF COMMERCIAL TENANT TO RENT ABATEMENT UNDER THE LEASE OR RESCISSION BASED UPON FRUSTRATION OF PURPOSE OR IMPOSSIBILITY (FIRST DEPT).
THE MOTION COURT APPLIED THE WRONG CRITERIA WHEN RULING ON WHETHER THE DEFENDANT WAS PREJUDICED BY THE ALLEGED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON DEFENSE COUNSEL’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO INFORM HIM OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING; ASSESSING DEFENDANT’S CHANCES AT TRIAL IS NOT THE PROPER ANALYSIS (FIRST DEPT).
WIFE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO INTERVENE IN AN ACTION SEEKING THE TURNOVER OF PERSONAL PROPERTY TO ENFORCE A JUDGMENT AGAINST HUSBAND; HER SEPARATE PROPERTY, AS OPPOSED TO MARITAL PROPERTY, COULD NOT BE REACHED BY A JUDGMENT CREDITOR.

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 BUILDING OWNER HAD, BY CONTRACT, RELINQUISHED ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ELEVATOR... DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF...