You are here: / / PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION FELL FROM AN INVERTED BUCKET...

PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION FELL FROM AN INVERTED BUCKET HE WAS STANDING ON TO REACH A POWER CABLE; DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THERE WAS NO NEED FOR PLAINTIFF TO ELEVATE HIMSELF TO DO HIS JOB; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff fell off an inverted bucket when he was installing stacked washers and dryers. Defendant demonstrated plaintiff did not need to elevate himself to do the work:

According to the plaintiff, on the day at issue, he was standing on an inverted bucket in order to reach the power cable for the stacked washer dryer unit that he had just pushed into the closet before he had plugged in the power cable. The plaintiff contended that the power cable was resting on top of the dryer and was out of reach, and that the washer dryer unit, although on wheels, was difficult to move, so he stood on an inverted bucket to reach the power cable. The plaintiff alleged that the bucket slipped out from under him and he fell and was injured. …

… [T]he plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries because his conduct unnecessarily exposed him to an elevation-related risk … . The plaintiff’s deposition testimony … established that a ladder was not necessary for the plaintiff to do his work. The plaintiff testified that each of the stacked washer and dryer units that he was installing was on wheels and not secured within the closet in which they were being installed. … [P]rior to the incident, he had installed approximately 20 stacked washer and dryer units without using a ladder. … [W]ith respect to the unit he was installing on the day at issue, in order to reach the power cable, he could have moved the stacked washer and dryer out of the closet rather than stand on an inverted bucket, but he chose not to do so. Morales v 50 N. First Partners, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 04801, Second Dept 8-3-22

Practice Point: In this unusual Labor Law 240(1) action, the defendants demonstrated plaintiff did not need to stand on an inverted bucket to do his job. Therefore plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his fall (from the bucket) and defendants were entitled to summary judgment.

 

You might also like
Where There Is a Surviving Partner and No Agreement to the Contrary, the Representative of a Deceased Partner Cannot Participate in the Winding Up of the Partnership and Has No Legal Right to the Partnership’s Assets, Books, Records or Business
A STAY OF THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS WAS TRIGGERED BY THE SUSPENSION OF DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY; BUT THE APPEARANCE OF NEW COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT TO OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAIVED THE PROTECTION OF THE STAY (SECOND DEPT).
COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE WHICH EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDED DEFENDANT SURGEON FROM PRACTICING MEDICINE IN METROPOLITAN NEW YORK WAS INVALIDATED, ARGUMENT FOR PARTIAL ENFORCEMENT REJECTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER TOLD THE COURT HE HAD RETAINED COUNSEL BUT COUNSEL COULD NOT ATTEND THE PETITION-TO-RELOCATE HEARING THAT DAY, COURT WENT AHEAD WITH THE HEARING, FATHER DEPRIVED OF HIS STATUTORY RIGHT TO COUNSEL.
Defendant May Be Liable for Obstruction in Municipal Right of Way
Officer of Corporation Dissolved Pursuant to the Tax Law Is Personally Liable for Corporation’s Lease Obligations
SNOW-REMOVAL COMPANY NOT LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACT; NO NEED FOR DEFENDANT TO ADDRESS ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS IN ITS SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IF THE EXCEPTIONS ARE NOT PLED BY THE PLAINTIFF.
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON AN AUTHORIZATION LETTER WHICH WAS NOT IN THE RECORD TO FIND THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WAS AUTHORIZED TO CONDUCT THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING WHICH RESULTED IN THE TERMINATION OF A CORRECTIONS OFFICER.

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

DEFENDANT PIZZA-DELIVERY DRIVER WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT... THE CITY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT FROM AN ACCIDENT REPORT...