You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS INSTRUCTED TO WORK ONLY ON...

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS INSTRUCTED TO WORK ONLY ON GROUND LEVEL AND NOT TO USE STILTS, AND WHETHER THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT WAS PLAINTIFF’S CONTINUED USE OF THE STILTS AFTER HE FELT THEM BECOME UNSTABLE, PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact which precluded summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Apparently, plaintiff fell while using stilts. There was a question of fact whether plaintiff’s boss told him to work only on ground level without stilts. And there was a question of fact whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident because he kept using the stilts when they became unstable and did not request another pair:

… [G]iven the nature of the work plaintiff was performing at the time of his accident, the distance he fell presented a physically significant elevation within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … . While the distance may have been physically significant within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1), evidence that plaintiff’s boss … specifically instructed him to only work on ground level and not to use stilts “raises triable issues of fact as to whether plaintiff’s duties were expressly limited to work that did not expose him to an elevation-related hazard within the purview of Labor Law § 240(1) … .

Issues of fact also exist as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident because when he felt the stilts become unstable his “normal and logical response” should have been to request another pair rather than to keep working on them … . …

While it is disputed whether plaintiff was using his own stilts or his employer provided them, and it is further unclear whether the stilts failed because a screw came out while they were in use or because they had been jerry-rigged with a wire threaded through a bolt hole, any use of defective stilts or failure to properly inspect them to discern any such defect was not the sole proximate cause of the accident where, as here, no proper safety devices were provided … . Gonzalez v DOLP 205 Props. II, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 03868, First Dept 6-14-22

Practice Point: Here, where plaintiff fell using stilts, evidence plaintiff was instructed to work only on ground level precluded summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff’s continued use of the stilts after he felt them become unstable raised a question of fact whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the injury.

 

You might also like
REMARKS ALLEGED TO BE DEFAMATORY REFLECTED THE RESULTS OF A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING AND WERE THEREFORE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 74 (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, DEFENDANTS GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND LESSEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
THE UNDERLYING OFFENSE AND DEFENDANT’S LIMITED HISTORY OF ALCOHOL ABUSE DID NOT WARRANT A PROBATION CONDITION REQUIRING CONSENT TO SEARCHES FOR WEAPONS, DRUGS AND OTHER CONTRABAND (FIRST DEPT).
THE CASE INVOLVES A NEW JERSEY INSURANCE POLICY ISSUED TO A NEW JERSEY COMPANY WHICH WAS DOING SUBWAY WORK IN NEW YORK, PURSUANT TO A 2017 COURT OF APPEALS RULING, WHETHER NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW’S TIMELY DISCLAIMER STATUTE APPLIES DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE INSURED HAS A SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS PRESENCE IN NEW YORK, MATTER REMITTED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE RECORD ON THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER INSTALLING CONDENSERS WAS ‘ALTERATION’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241(6); DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
EXPERT DISCLOSURE NOTICE NEED NOT DISCLOSE FACTS AND OPINIONS ABOUT WHICH EXPERT WILL TESTIFY, LATE EXPERT DISCLOSURE NOTICE FOR A REBUTTAL WITNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED.
QUESTION WHETHER A CONTRACT WHICH IS SILENT ABOUT ITS DURATION WAS PROPERLY TERMINATED REQUIRED CONSIDERATION OF THE INTENT OF THE PARTIES AND COULD NOT BE RESOLVED BASED UPON THE PLEADINGS ALONE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
IN NEW YORK THERE ARE NO CAUSES OF ACTION FOR “PRECONCEPTION NEGLIGENCE” OR “WRONGFUL LIFE;” HERE MOTHER ALLEGED THE DRUG SHE HAD BEEN TAKING FOR EPILEPSY BEFORE SHE LEARNED SHE WAS PREGNANT CAUSED THE BABY TO BE BORN WITH SPINA BIFIDA (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE VALIDITY OF A GUILTY PLEA IS NOT PROPERLY RAISED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS... THE STIPULATION ACKNOWLEDGING THE PRIOR DEBT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE DEED TRANSFERRING...