You are here: / / BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD TO STAND ON THE GUARDRAILS OF THE MANLIFT TO REACH...

BECAUSE PLAINTIFF HAD TO STAND ON THE GUARDRAILS OF THE MANLIFT TO REACH WHAT HE WAS WORKING ON, THE MANLIFT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE EQUIPMENT; PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff had to stand on the guardrails of a manlift to reach what he was working on. He received an electric shock and fell:

Plaintiffs should be granted summary judgment as to defendants’ liability under the statute. The record demonstrates that plaintiff Matthew S. Healy (plaintiff) fell from the guardrails of a manlift after sustaining an electric shock. Plaintiff was required to stand on the manlift’s guardrails because HVAC ductwork prevented him from raising the manlift to the area in which he needed to work. Thus, the manlift was “inappropriate for the task at hand in light of the configuration of the building” and failed to afford plaintiff adequate protection pursuant to the statute … .Healy v BOP One N. End LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01388, First Dept 3-3-22

 

You might also like
FAILURE TO GIVE SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS TO CLARIFY THE SHARED INTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY DEPRIVED DEFEFNDANTS OF A FAIR TRIAL.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS INTERSECTION COLLISION CASE, THE DRIVER OF THE CAR IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER DID NOT STOP AT A STOP SIGN, ALLEGATIONS OF DEFENDANT’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE INSUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO INSTRUCT JURY THAT AN ACQUITTAL ON THE TOP COUNT BASED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE PRECLUDED CONSIDERATION OF THE REMAINING CHARGES REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FIRST DEPT).
UNDER PENNSYLVANIA LAW PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY ON A TRAMPOLINE WITH MULTIPLE JUMPERS (FIRST DEPT).
English Judgment Enforceable by New York Courts Without Demonstration of Subject Matter Jurisdiction or Ownership of Property in New York
BECAUSE ONLY A CORPORATE ENTITY FORMED BY PLAINTIFF TENANT WAS NAMED ON THE LEASE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT STABILIZATION PROTECTIONS (FIRST DEPT).
There Is No “Imminent Litigation” Requirement for the Application of the “Common-Interest Privilege”—Documents Generated During Merger Negotiations Among Two Corporations and Their Counsel May, Therefore, Be Protected by the Privilege, Which Is an Exception to the Rule that the Presence of a Third Party at a Communication Between Counsel and Client Destroys the Privilege
Plaintiffs Not Entitled to Attorneys Fees in Shareholder Derivative Action Because They Did Not Go to the Board Before Going to Court

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

FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO MODIFY A SEPARATION AGREEMENT WHICH... THE CONTRACTOR COULD NOT ESCAPE LIABILITY FOR PAYMENT OF THE SUBCONTRACTOR;...