You are here: / / PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS STANDING ON AN A-FRAME LADDER WHEN IT SHIFTED...

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS STANDING ON AN A-FRAME LADDER WHEN IT SHIFTED CAUSING A CONCRETE SLAB TO FALL ON HIS HAND; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; IN ADDITION A DEFENDANT FAILED TO SHOW IT WAS NOT AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should not have been granted. Plaintiff alleged the A-frame ladder he was standing when positioning a concrete slab shifted causing the slab to fall on his hand. In addition the Second Department determined defendant (Cappy’s) did not demonstrate it was not an “owner” within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1):

The defendants failed to show, prima facie, that this incident did not involve an injury caused by the failure to provide a safety device to protect against an elevation-related risk, within the meaning of the statute. In particular, the plaintiff’s work entailed attempting to move or lift a heavy slab of cement at ceiling or roof level, while standing on a ladder. The plaintiff testified that the ladder “moved” while he was reaching for the slab, causing the slab to fall or drop. The plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that a sling or other device should have been provided to secure the slab. Under these circumstances, the defendants failed to show, prima facie, that this incident did not result from the failure to provide such safety device to protect against an elevation-related risk, and the evidence also raised issues of fact as to that matter … .

Further, [defendant] Cappy’s failed to show, prima facie, that it cannot be deemed an “owner” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1). Under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), “those parties with a property interest who hire the general contractor” are deemed “owners” … . “Lessees who hire a contractor and have the right to control the work being done are considered ‘owners’ within the meaning of the statutes” … . Gomez v 670 Merrick Rd. Realty Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 07549, Second Dept 12-16-20

 

You might also like
STRIKING A PEDESTRIAN IS NEGLIGENCE PER SE; FAILING TO SEE WHAT THERE IS TO SEE IS NEGLIGENCE; ANY COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ON PLAINTIFF’S PART IS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED; PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE CHILD SUPPORT INCOME FOR TWO CHILDREN IN COLLEGE WAS COUNTED AS PART OF THE HOUSEHOLD INCOME, THE TWO COLLEGE STUDENTS WERE PROPERLY NOT COUNTED FOR FOOD STAMP ELIGIBILITY, THE DENIAL OF FOOD STAMPS WAS PROPER (SECOND DEPT).
Under the Unique Circumstances of this Case, the Neglect Adjudication Should Have Been Vacated Upon Compliance with the Conditions of the Suspended Judgment
Failure to Specifically Demonstrate When Area Where Fall Occurred Was Last Inspected or Cleaned Required Denial of Summary Judgment
PRIOR RULINGS ON APPEAL CONSTITUTE THE LAW OF THE CASE, SUPREME COURT RULING TO THE CONTRARY REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant’s Refusing to Be Interviewed by the Probation Department Was a Valid Ground for Sentence Enhancement
DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR CONCEDING DEFENDANT SUFFERS FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER; COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD THE MANDATORY STATUTORY HEARING; APPEAL IS NOT ACADEMIC BECAUSE OF LASTING CONSEQUENCES OF THE ‘DANGEROUS MENTAL DISORDER’ FINDING (SECOND DEPT).
OKAY TO REPLACE PART-TIME LOBBY ATTENDANTS WITH VIDEO SURVEILLANCE (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

SERVICE ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT COMPLY WITH BUSINESS... PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION...