You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241...

PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) CAUSES OF ACTION STEMMING FROM TWO INCIDENTS: A FORM FELL OFF A WALL ONTO PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A DEFECTIVE GRINDER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment on Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of causes of action should have been granted. Two separate incidents were alleged: (1) a concrete form fell three to five feet off a wall onto plaintiff; and (2) plaintiff was injured after he was directed to use a defective grinder:

… [Plaintiff] had been instructed to clean up debris directly underneath a form used for concrete, and that the form came off the wall and fell on top of him from a height of three to five feet … . Plaintiff’s inability to explain precisely what caused the form to fall on him does not preclude Labor Law § 240(1) liability … . Plaintiff demonstrated that he was injured when the steel and plywood form fell on him because an elevation-related safety device failed, or no device was placed and operated so as to provide him with adequate protection … .

… [P]laintiff was not required to supply an expert affidavit … . …

Plaintiff was directed to use a visibly defective grinder that had no blade, safety guard or side handle. There was also no cut-off switch. While he was using the grinder, it spontaneously cut off and then turned back on, without plaintiff engaging the power switch. When plaintiff complained, he was instructed to proceed with the defective grinder or go home. Viruet v Purvis Holdings LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 05840, First Dept 10-26-21

 

You might also like
INABILITY TO IMPOSE THE PROMISED SENTENCE REQUIRED THAT DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA BE VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
RELEVANT REGULATION, RATHER THAN THE POLICY LANGUAGE, CONTROLLED THE CALCULATION OF INTEREST ON INSURANCE POLICY PROCEEDS (FIRST DEPT).
MOTHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE TO FLORIDA PROPERLY DENIED, INSUFFICIENT SHOWING THE MOVE WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD.
STEP WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ACTIONABLE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
Third-Party Claims Against Other Law Firms Which Advised Plaintiff.
Court-Ordered Period for Bringing Summary Judgment Motion Which Was Shorter than the Statutory Period Cannot Be Modified Absent Good Cause—Law Office Failure Not Enough
JURORS WHO ENGAGED IN PREMATURE DELIBERATIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED AS “GROSSLY UNQUALIFIED” ABSENT A FINDING THEY COULD NOT RENDER AN IMPARTIAL VERDICT (FIRST DEPT).
THE PERSISTENT ABUSE STATUTE ENCOMPASSES THREE DISTINCT TYPES OF SEXUAL CONTACT; THE INDICTMENT DID NOT IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC GENRE OF SEXUAL CONTACT WITH WHICH DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED; THE INDICTMENT THEREFORE DID NOT PROVIDE FAIR NOTICE OF THE ACCUSATIONS (FIRST 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

IN CONSIDERING A MOTION TO DISMISS A PETITON TO MODIFY CUSTODY TO ALLOW RELOCATION,... THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S SON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REPLACED AS GUARDIAN...