You are here: / / STORED SHEETROCK PANELS WHICH FELL OVER ON PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONSTITUTE...

STORED SHEETROCK PANELS WHICH FELL OVER ON PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONSTITUTE THE KIND OF ELEVATION/GRAVITY-RELATED INCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined sheetrock panels which were stored upright and fell over on plaintiff did not constitute an elevation-related hazard within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1):

“The extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240(1) extend only to a narrow class of special hazards, and do ‘not encompass any and all perils that may be connected in some tangential way with the effects of gravity'” … . Therefore, to recover under Labor Law § 240(1), the injured plaintiff “must have suffered an injury as ‘the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential'” … .

“With respect to falling objects, Labor Law § 240(1) applies where the falling of an object is related to ‘a significant risk inherent in . . . the relative elevation . . . at which materials or loads must be positioned or secured'” … . “Therefore, a plaintiff must show more than simply that an object fell, thereby causing injury to a worker. A plaintiff must show that, at the time the object fell, it was being hoisted or secured, or that the falling object required securing for the purposes of the undertaking” … .

Here, [defendant] established … the injured plaintiff’s injuries were not caused by an elevation-related or gravity-related risk within the scope of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Parrino v Rauert, 2022 NY Slip Op 04970, Second Dept 8-17-22

Practice Point: Here stored sheetrock panels which fell over on plaintiff did not constitute the kind of elevation/gravity-related incident that is covered by Labor Law 240(1). The facts are not explained. If the sheetrock should have been secured, it would seem Labor Law 240(1) would apply. Apparently defendant demonstrated there was no need to secure the sheetrock?

 

/by
You might also like
TAKING A LEAVE OF ABSENCE FROM A POSITION ON THE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS TO RUN FOR STATE SENATE IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF RESIGNING FROM THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, WHICH IS REQUIRED BY THE ELECTION LAW; THE DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED (SECOND DEPT). ​
$13,000,000 VERDICT IS AGAINST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT BACK-INJURY CASE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED UNLESS PLAINTIFFS STIPULATE TO A SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED VERDICT (SECOND DEPT).
THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT VERIFIED PROPERLY OVERLOOKED (SECOND DEPT).
THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS INCONSISTENT AFTER IT WAS DEEMED A DEFENSE VERDICT VIOLATED THE BINDING SUMMARY TRIAL STIPULATION; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
AN ENTRY IN A HOSPITAL RECORD INDICATING PLAINTIFF FELL DOWN A FEW STAIRS WAS NOT GERMANE TO TREATMENT OR DIAGNOSIS AND WAS NOT AN ADMISSION BECAUSE THE SOURCE OF THE ENTRY WAS UNKNOWN; NEW TRIAL ORDERED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER WAS REQUIRED TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM PURSUANT TO CPLR 9802 IN AN ACTION SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A LOCAL LAW WAS INVALID, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
DICTA IN A COURT ORDER WAS NOT A FINDING ON THE MERITS AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR A DISMISSAL FOUNDED UPON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MATERNAL GRANDPARENTS HAD STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION AND WHETHER VISITATION WOULD BE IN THE CHILD’S BEST INTERESTS, FAMILY COURT HAD MADE FINDINGS BASED UPON PRIOR PROCEEDINGS THAT WERE NOT PART OF THE RECORD (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE NONPARTY SUBPOENA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN QUASHED AND THE RELATED PROTECTIVE... ALTHOUGH NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE MICHIGAN CUSTODY ORDER;...