You are here: / / A HEAVY DOOR FELL ON PLAINTIFF’S HAND AS HE AND A CO-WORKER ATTEMPTED...

A HEAVY DOOR FELL ON PLAINTIFF’S HAND AS HE AND A CO-WORKER ATTEMPTED TO LIFT THE DOOR ONTO A TRUCK; NO LIFTING DEVICES WERE AVAILABLE; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s injury to his hand when a heavy door fell as plaintiff attempted to lift the door onto a truck warranted summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. There was evidence no hoists or other lifting devices were available:

Plaintiff testified that there were no hoists, forklifts, or other lifting devices on the work site, and that the door fell because it was too heavy for him and his coworkers to hold up without such a device. Plaintiff further testified that he knew that the door weighed about 300 pounds because he could lift 100 pounds by himself, but that he and his coworker were unable to lift it together.

The affidavit of his employer’s foreman, who admittedly did not witness the accident, did not dispute most of the facts relevant to plaintiff’s claim. The foreman’s affidavit failed to raise a question of fact as to the door’s weight, since he did not provide any basis for his bare claim that the door weighed about 100-120 pounds and could easily be lifted by two workers without the use of a hoist or forklift. Furthermore, the precise weight of the door, whether it fell from a height of 7 feet or 3 ½ feet, or whether a dolly was being used when it fell are not material in this case. It is undisputed that no lifting devices contemplated by Labor Law § 240(1) were available at the job site and that plaintiff’s injuries flow “directly from the application of the force of gravity to the object” … . Taopanta v 1211 6th Ave. Prop. Owner, LLC., 2023 NY Slip Op 00385, First Dept 1-26-23

Practice Point: Although the weight of the door which fell onto plaintiff’s hand as he tried to lift the door onto a truck was disputed (300 versus 100-120), it was undisputed that no lifting devices were available. Plaintiff should have been awarded summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.

You might also like
DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO SLIP AND FALL; PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY IDENTIFIED THE CAUSE OF HER FALL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Owners’ Intent, at the Time Plaintiff Was Injured, to Use the Property As a Second Home Triggered the Homeowners’ Exemption to Labor Law Liability Notwithstanding that the Owners Never Occupied the Property and Started Leasing It Two Years After the Accident
ACCOUNTING CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS SHAREHOLDERS’ DERIVATIVE SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; ALTHOUGH SUA SPONTE ORDERS ARE NOT APPEALABLE, THE APPEAL WAS HEARD IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; PROPER WAY TO HANDLE A SUA SPONTE ORDER IS TO MOVE TO VACATE AND THEN APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
LAW OFFICE FAILURE WAS AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR A TWO-WEEK DELAY IN FILING PAPERS OPPOSING SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BANK OF AMERICA’S PURCHASE OF THE ASSETS OF COUNTRYWIDE WAS A DE FACTO MERGER ALLOWING THE INSURER OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES ISSUED BY COUNTRYWIDE TO SUE BANK OF AMERICA.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF WATER ON THE FLOOR (FIRST DEPT).
“At Will” Employee Stated a Cause of Action Alleging Defendants Fraudulently Induced Him to Take the “At Will” Job
DEFENDANT RESTAURANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE GREASY OR SLIPPERY CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (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 PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SCHOOL PLAYGROUND... EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENDANT CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY...