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

PLAINTIFF ROOFER WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE HE FELL THROUGH AN UNPROTECTED HOLE IN THE ROOF WHICH WAS COVERED ONLY BY A SHEET OF BLACK PLASTIC; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF HAD UNTIED HIS SAFETY HARNESS SO HE COULD ASSIST A CO-WORKER DID NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT RELEVANT UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the fact that plaintiff untied his harness so he could assist a fellow roofer in another area of the roof did not preclude summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff, when walking toward the co-worker he was going to assist, fell through a hole in the roof that was concealed by a sheet of black plastic:

… [T]he plaintiff established, prima facie, that Labor Law § 240(1) was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of his injuries. The undisputed evidence established that the plaintiff was exposed to the elevation-related risk of the hole that was cut into the roof, that the hole through which the plaintiff fell was uncovered and unguarded, and that the location of the hole was concealed by an ice and water shield. The plaintiff established that the absence of protective equipment covering or guarding the hole was a proximate cause of his injuries. Indeed, in granting summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action, the Supreme Court found that the defendants failed to cover or guard the hole as required by the Industrial Code, and that such failure was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. “[W]hen the evidence establishes the absence of any safety devices . . . the statutes’ [Labor Law § 240(1)] clear dictates have not been met. . . If proximate cause is established, the responsible parties have failed, as a matter of law, to ‘give proper protection'” … .

… [T]he defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether there was a statutory violation and whether the plaintiff’s own conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . Since the plaintiff established a violation of the statute and that the violation was a proximate cause of his fall, the plaintiff’s comparative negligence, if any, is not a defense to the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action … . Mejia v 69 Mamaroneck Rd. Corp, 2022 NY Slip Op 01449, Second Dept 3-9-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff fell through an unprotected hole in the roof covered only by a sheet of black plastic. Even though he had untied his safety harness at the time of the fall, summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was awarded by the appellate court because comparative negligence is not defense.

 

You might also like
RULING THAT DEFENDANT COULD BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT THREE PRIOR GUN-RELATED CONVICTIONS IF HE TESTIFIED THE SHOOTING WAS AN ACCIDENT DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF THE RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY INJURED HIS HAND WHEN HE SAW HIS DAUGHTER START TO SLIP OUT OF A SWING ON A SCHOOL PLAYGROUND AND STOPPED THE SWING; THE ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE SWING WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY; THE COURT NOTED THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO THIS SCENARIO (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT WHO WAS HANDED THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT IN THIS PROPERTY-DAMAGE ACTION WAS AN AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT; THEREFORE THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLETE PROPER SERVICE (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE 2ND DEPARTMENT REVERSED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE BANK BECAUSE ONE OF TWO BORROWERS WAS NOT NAMED IN THE RPAPL 1306 FILING; THIS RULING MAY NOT HOLD UP BECAUSE, ON MARCH 30, 2021, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD ONLY ONE BORROWER NEED BE NAMED IN THE RPAPL 1306 FILING (SECOND DEPT).
DEFECT WHICH CAUSED SLIP AND FALL WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW 2ND DEPT.
THE CUSTODY-RELATED PRINCIPALS UNDERLYING MICHAEL B, 80 NY2D 299, APPLY TO THIS SURROGATE’S COURT GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDING WHERE BOTH PARENTS SEEK TO BE APPOINTED GUARDIAN OF THEIR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED SON AS HE TURNS 18; NEW EVIDENCE RENDERED THE RECORD INSUFFICIENT FOR A GUARDIANSHIP DETERMINATION; A NEW HEARING WAS ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHILE ON THE GROUND CUTTING A TREE, BECAUSE GRAVITY WAS NOT INVOLVED LABOR LAW 240 (1) DID NOT APPLY, BUT BECAUSE CUTTING THE TREE WAS ANCILLARY TO WORK ON A STRUCTURE, LABOR LAW 241 (6) DID APPLY (SECOND 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

WHEN THE PROPERTY OWNER DIED INTESTATE, THE DECEDENT’S INTEREST IN THE... EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF DID NOT TIMELY FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE AND DID NOT COMPLY...