You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LOW CONCRETE RETAINING WALL TO THE GROUND...

PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LOW CONCRETE RETAINING WALL TO THE GROUND WAS NOT THE TYPE OF ELEVATION-RELATED INCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should have been dismissed. Plaintiff alleged he stepped on a low concrete retaining wall and slipped on oil, which was not the type of elevation hazard covered by section 240(1):

… [T]he defendant established that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) on the ground that the plaintiff was not exposed to the type of elevation-related hazard contemplated by that statute. The evidence submitted by the defendant established that the height differential from the concrete retaining wall to the ground did not constitute a physically significant elevation differential covered by the statute … . Eliassian v G.F. Constr., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 00419, Second Dept 1-27-21

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER REQUIRING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE DID NOT JUSTIFY THE SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE FAILURE TO OPPOSE THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS DUE TO NEGLECT WHICH DOES NOT WARRANT VACATUR; THE MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER ENTERED ON PLAINTIFF’S DEFAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT HAD BEEN AT LIBERTY FOR 11 YEARS WITHOUT COMMITTING A SEX OFFENSE AND THE FOUR-YEAR DIFFERENCE IN AGE BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND THE VICTIM WARRANTED A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE TO LEVEL ONE (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE FAULT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS ROAD-DEFECT SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE NINE-MONTH DELAY WAS NOT EXPLAINED; THE CITIY DID NOT HAVE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT; AND PETITIONER DID NOT SHOW THE CITY WOULD NOT BE PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).
Discovery Demands Overbroad
Question of Fact Raised About Whether Snow-Removal Contractor Created or Exacerbated the Dangerous Condition
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CHILDREN TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE HOMEOWNER AND THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT SUPERVISORY... BEFORE PETITIONER INMATE’S ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS CONSIDERED RESPONDENT...