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
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BY FATHER, THERE WAS NO ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE THE CHILD WAS PRESENT; NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Pursuant to the NYC Administrative Code, Abutting Property Owners Are Not Responsible for the Maintenance of Tree Wells Within the Sidewalk
FAILURE TO DISCLOSE DETAILS OF ARRESTS JUSTIFIED DENIAL OF PISTOL PERMIT.
ALTHOUGH FATHER HAD THE RIGHT TO WAIVE COUNSEL AND PROCEED PRO SE IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT PROPERLY REFUSED HIS UNTIMELY REQUEST (SECOND DEPT).
PHOTOGRAPHER WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR NOT AN EMPLOYEE, NO VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR INJURY CAUSED BY PHOTOGRAPHER.
SIGN ON A LIGHT POLE, WHICH PLAINTIFF STRUCK WHEN JUMPING TO CATCH A BALL, WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
DURING THE FUNERAL PLAINTIFF (ALLEGEDLY) LEARNED DECEDENT’S BODY WAS NOT IN THE CASKET; THE LOSS OF SEPULCHER ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN BRINGING THE UNTIMELY CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE MERITS OF THE MOTION (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...