You are here: / / CLAIMANT WAS INJURED WHEN A TRUCK STRUCK THE BASKET OF THE MAN LIFT SHE...
,

CLAIMANT WAS INJURED WHEN A TRUCK STRUCK THE BASKET OF THE MAN LIFT SHE WAS USING; THE FACT THAT CLAIMANT DIDN’T FALL FROM THE BASKET DID NOT WARRANT THE DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 200 and 240(1) causes of action should not have been dismissed. Claimant was in the basket of a man lift when a car carrier (truck) struck the basket causing it to “ricochet back and forth/” The fact that claimant didn’t fall from the basket did not take the incident outside the scope of Labor Law 240(1):

The Court of Claims erred in granting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. The defendant failed to demonstrate its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. “The fact that the plaintiff did not actually fall from the [basket] is irrelevant as long as the ‘harm directly flow[ed] from the application of the force of gravity to [her] person'” … . Johnsen v State of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 04540, Second Dept 7-13-22

Practice Point: Here claimant was in the basket of a man lift when a truck struck the basket causing it to “ricochet back and forth.” The fact that claimant didn’t fall from the basket did not support the dismissal of the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Labor Laq 240(1) requires that the injury directly flow from the “application of gravity” to the person.

 

You might also like
AN APPELLATE COURT MAY CONSIDER A SUPPRESSION RULING GROUNDED ON A THEORY NOT RELIED UPON OR ARGUED BY THE PARTIES AS LONG AS THE RULING IS BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE AND IS FULLY LAID OUT AND EXPLAINED BY THE MOTION COURT; HERE THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY AND THE EVIDENCE SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME FOR MOSTLY WEEKEND SHORT-RENTALS IS NOT A LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE OF THE PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant-Driver’s Admission and Prior Inconsistent Statement, Contained in the Police Accident Report, Should Have Been Admitted in Evidence
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA AND DID NOT HAVE A PRACTICAL ABILITY TO OBJECT, THEREFORE AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT FOR APPEAL APPLIES, MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
THE SEARCH WARRANT SEEKING CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION (CSLI) FROM THE NEW JERSEY CELL PHONE COMPANY WAS FAXED TO NEW JERSEY FROM NEW YORK; THEREFORE THE WARRANT WAS “EXECUTED” IN NEW YORK AND DID NOT VIOLATE THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION OR CPL ARTICLE 690 (SECOND DEPT). ​
ACCIDENT DIAGRAM IN POLICE REPORT WAS NOT BASED ON OFFICER’S FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE; REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
A Slip and Fall Defendant Who Moves for Summary Judgment Must Demonstrate When the Area Where the Fall Occurred Was Last Inspected or Cleaned

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

IN A REAR-END COLLISION CASE, THE ALLEGATION THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY... THE BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE “SEPARATE ENVELOPE” REQUIREMENT...