You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE...

PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THE ROPE AND FRAME USED TO PREVENT A HEAVY OBJECT FROM FALLING WHEN PLAINTIFF DETACHED IT FROM THE WALL DID NOT WORK (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was struck by a 200 pound fire damper when it fell from the wall. A co-worker was holding a rope tied to the damper and looped over a temporary frame. When plaintiff broke the last weld securing the fire damper the co-worker who was holding the rope was unable to keep the damper from falling:

… [T]he statute is violated where an object, while being hoisted or secured, falls because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute … , including where, as here, the inadequacy or absence of a safety device results in the uncontrolled descent of an object … . Here, plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment because the rope proved inadequate to prevent the damper from falling … .

The eight-foot fall of the 200-pound damper that plaintiff was tasked with removing was not an ordinary construction site peril but an elevation-related hazard, within the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1), which was required to be secured against unregulated descent to prevent it from falling on plaintiff … . Further, regulating its descent to prevent it from falling would not have been contrary to the purpose of work … . Mayorga v 75 Plaza LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 01204, First Dept 2-25-21

 

You might also like
THE INTERSTATE COMPACT FOR THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN (ICPC) APPLIES ONLY TO OUT-OF-STATE ADOPTION OR FOSTER CARE, NOT TO THE PLACEMENT OF A CHILD WITH AN OUT-OF-STATE PARENT; QUESTION CONSIDERED ON APPEAL AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE; REGULATION RELIED ON TO APPLY THE ICPC CONFLICTS WITH THE CONTROLLING STATUTE (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPTICAL CONFUSION OBSCURED A STEP, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
ISSUE OF FACT ABOUT MEANING OF AN EXCLUSION IN A FLOOD INSURANCE POLICY.
DEFENDANT TRIPPED OVER A PIECE OF PIPE STICKING OUT OF THE FLOOR AND FELL INTO THE UNGUARDED ELEVATOR MECHANISM; THE DEFECT WAS NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
PRESENCE OF LOOSE GRANULES WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO SLIP TO HIS KNEES VIOLATED INDUSTRIAL CODE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED ON CHILDREN’S CONSENT (FIRST DEPT).
Plaintiff’s Double-Parked Vehicle Furnished a Condition for the Accident But Was Not a Proximate Cause of the Acciden
Violent Felony Conviction for which Defendant Not Yet Sentenced Can Be Considered in SORA Assessment

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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION–A STEEP EMBANKMENT... ALTHOUGH THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW GAVE THE DECEDENT’S DAUGHTER THE AUTHORITY...