You are here: / / AN OPEN MANHOLE IS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD COVERED BY LABOR LAW...

AN OPEN MANHOLE IS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, affirming Supreme Court, determined falling down an open manhole is not an elevation-related hazard covered by Labor Law 240(1):

Labor Law § 240(1) “imposes upon owners and general contractors, and their agents a nondelegable duty to provide workers proper protection from elevation-related hazards” … . The statute “was designed to prevent those types of accidents in which the scaffold, hoist, stay, ladder or other protective device proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person” … . “Not every gravity-related injury is within the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1)” … . “‘Whether a plaintiff is entitled to recovery under Labor Law § 240(1) requires a determination of whether the injury sustained is the type of elevation-related hazard to which the statute applies'” … .

… [T]he plaintiff’s injuries, though the result of a fall, did not result from an elevation-relation hazard encompassed by Labor Law § 240(1) … . Bonkoski v Condos Bros. Constr. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 02296, Second Dept 5-3-23

Practice Point: An open manhole is not an elevated-related hazard covered by Labor Law 240(1).

 

You might also like
Under the Facts, Family Court Should Not Have Terminated Father’s Parental Rights—No Showing that Termination Would Increase Likelihood of Adoption
THERE WAS EVIDENCE DEFENDANTS’ EMPLOYEES DIRECTED TRUCKS TO DRIVE OVER THE DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL, RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS CREATED THE SIDEWALK DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL PERSONNEL PROPERLY INSTRUCTED INFANT PLAINTIFF ON THE USE OF THE ZIP LINE FROM WHICH SHE ALLEGEDY FELL (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFAULTING DEFENDANT WHOSE ANSWER HAD BEEN STRUCK WAS NOT ENTITLED TO FURTHER DISCOVERY PRIOR TO THE INQUEST ON DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).
Summary Judgment Can Not Be Granted Based on Affidavit By Someone with No Personal Knowledge of the Facts, Even If Factual Information Not Disputed
BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Pleading Requirements for “Fraud” and “Aiding and Abetting Fraud” Causes of Action Succinctly Described
Late Notice of Claim Disallowed

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 BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING... CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT BASED UPON ALLEGATIONS NOT INCLUDED IN THE...