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
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS ACTED AS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR, THEY DID NOT SUPERVISE OR CONTROL ANY OF THE WORK, HOMEOWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Sentencing Court Must Make Finding Whether Eligible Youth Should Be Afforded Youthful Offender Status
FATHER DID NOT ABUSE THE JUDICIAL PROCESS, FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE PROHIBITED FUTURE PETITIONS.
IN THIS LIEN LAW DISPUTE OVER PAYMENT PURSUANT TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE RESTORATION OF IMPROPERLY DIVERTED TRUST ASSETS WITH NON-TRUST ASSETS LIMITED DEFENDANTS’ DAMAGES (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED USING DEFENDANT’S BOW; DEFENDANT MOVED FOR PERMISSION TO PERFORM TESTS ON THE BOW WHICH INVOLVED REMOVING AND THEN REPLACING THE DAMAGED COMPONENT OF THE BOW; THE JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH TESTING WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED (FOURTH DEPT).
Failure to Appeal Dismissal of Underlying Medical Malpractice Action Did Not Preclude Related Legal Malpractice Action
TOWN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SNOWPLOW TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE SNOWPLOW OPERATOR’S ACTIONS ROSE TO THE RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD IN THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (FOURTH DEPT).
Cleaning Clogged Drain Was Routine Maintenance, Not Covered by Labor Law 240(1)

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...