You are here: / / PLAINTIFF INJURED HIS BACK LIFTING A HEAVY METAL STRUCTURE A FEW INCHES...

PLAINTIFF INJURED HIS BACK LIFTING A HEAVY METAL STRUCTURE A FEW INCHES TO ALLOW ROOFING MATERIAL TO BE PUT DOWN UNDERNEATH IT; THE INJURY WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff injured his back lifting a metal structure a few inches so roofing material could be applied underneath it. The injury was not related to the failure to provide a safety device to prevent an elevation-related injury:

… “[L]iability may . . . be imposed under [Labor Law § 240 (1)] only where the ‘plaintiff’s injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential’ ” … . The statute “was designed to prevent those types of accidents in which the scaffold, hoist, stay, ladder or other protective device proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person” … . … [T]he protections of Labor Law § 240 (1) ” ‘do not encompass any and all perils that may be connected in some tangential way with the effects of gravity’ ” … .

… Although plaintiff’s back injury was “tangentially related to the effects of gravity upon the [structure] he was lifting, it was not caused by the limited type of elevation-related hazards encompassed by Labor Law § 240 (1)” … . … [P]laintiff’s injuries “resulted from a ‘routine workplace risk[]’ of a construction site and not a ‘pronounced risk[] arising from construction work site elevation differentials’ ” … . Branch v 1908 W. Ridge Rd, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 06248, Fourth Dept 11-12-21

 

You might also like
DENIAL OF VARIANCES FOR BILLBOARDS UPHELD, ANY HARDSHIP DEEMED SELF-CREATED.
THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION BUT A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR ALLOWING PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE TO COME IN WITHOUT A STRATEGIC JUSTIFICATION (FOURTH DEPT).
ORDER ENTERED ON CONSENT IS NOT APPEALABLE; ONLY REMEDY IS MOTION TO VACATE.
THE PEOPLE DID NOT PRESENT EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AT THE DARDEN HEARING THAT THE INFORMANT EXISTED, THEREFORE THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS GRANTED AND THE INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
LOCAL LAWS CONCERNING HEALTH BENEFITS FOR RETIRED TOWN EMPLOYEES WHICH WERE NOT ENACTED BY REFERENDUM ARE ENTIRELY INVALID (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE CASE WAS REMITTED TO SUPREME COURT TO PROCURE A RULING ON WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS; YET DEFENSE COUNSEL FOCUSED ON DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING AS AN ADULT AND ESSENTIALLY IGNORED THE “YOUTHFUL OFFENDER” ISSUE; DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS DENTAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF RAISED ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TO TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE DEVIATION FROM THE STANDARD OF CARE, AND THE LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
Counsel for Nonparty Witness Cannot Participate in Deposition

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

THE DWI COUNTS WERE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER WHICH... SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED A HEARING ON THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE...