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
SURROGATE’S COURT SHOULD HAVE CARRIED OUT WHAT DECEDENT CLEARLY INTENDED, DESPITE THE DEFECT IN THE MEANS CHOSEN TO EFFECT HIS INTENT.
DEFENDANT ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER FAILED TO ELIMINATE ALL TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT RE WHETHER A GAP BETWEEN THE CURB AND THE SIDEWALK WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ITS NEGLIGENCE AND CONTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE WITH THE CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT A HEARING, THE PETITION WAS GRANTED AFTER FATHER SCREAMED AT COURT PERSONNEL (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ALLOW THE EX PARTE INTERVIEW OF THE NONPARTY TREATING PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S EXPLANATION OF THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE COULD SUE FOR DECEDENT’S CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING BUT, BECAUSE THE WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION HAD NOT BEEN LISTED AS AN ASSET IN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING, THE ADMINISTRATOR DID NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO SUE ON BEHALF OF THE DISTRIUBUTEE FOR WRONGFUL DEATH (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE STROKE DIAGNOSIS WAS TIMELY AND WHETHER THE FAILURE TO MAKE A TIMELY DIAGNOSIS DECREASED THE CHANCES OF A BETTER OUTCOME (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact About Whether Good Faith Lender, Which Recorded Its Mortgage First, Had a Duty to Inquire About a Prior Mortgage
THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE DESTROYED THE UNDERGROUND OIL TANKS WHICH WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE LEAKED, CONTAMINATING PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY; HOWEVER THE DEFENDANT OIL COMPANIES DID NOT DEMONSRTATE THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TANKS MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A DEFENSE; THEREFORE AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION, NOT THE STRIKING OF THE COMPLAINT, WAS THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION (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...