You are here: / / EVIDENCE THAT THE LADDER TILTED CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO JUMP OFF WARRANTED...

EVIDENCE THAT THE LADDER TILTED CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO JUMP OFF WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this ladder fall case. It was enough that the ladder tilted causing plaintiff to jump off onto a plank below. Plaintiff alleged a nail which would have prevented the ladder from tilting was missing. Plaintiff’s actions were not the sole proximate cause of the injury:

“Labor Law § 240(1) imposes upon owners and general contractors, and their agents, a nondelegable duty to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites” … . “‘In order to prevail on a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, a plaintiff must establish that the statute was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries'” … .

Here, the plaintiff established, prima facie, that his injuries were proximately caused by a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) by submitting, inter alia, his deposition testimony that he was working on a ladder which tilted, causing him to lose his balance and jump onto the plank below … .

… The defendants’ contentions that the plaintiff leaned to one side while he was working and that he jumped off the ladder as it began to tilt were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . Acevedo v PSM Long Is. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 03322, Second Dept 6-21-23

Practice Point: Evidence that the ladder tilted causing plaintiff to jump off warranted summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. The defendants’ contention that the ladder tilted because plaintiff leaned to the side did not raise a question of fact about whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries.

 

You might also like
PEDESTRIAN PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE AS SHE WAS CROSSING THE ENTRANCE TO A PARKING LOT; DEFENDANT TESTIFIED HE NEVER SAW THE PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND HER MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE ALLEGING PLAINTIFF WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Statements in Hospital Records Attributable to Plaintiff Not Admissible Because Not Germane to Treatment or Diagnosis/Plaintiff’s Counsel Should Not Have Been Allowed to Comment on Defense’s Failure to Call the Nurse Who Was Going to Testify About the Statements—New Trial Ordered
Civil Forfeiture Should Not Have Been Made Part of Defendant’s Sentence In the Absence of Defendant’s Voluntary Agreement
PLAINTIFF BANK, AT TRIAL, FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD’S AGENTS WERE AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, LANDLORD’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
PLAINTIFF STUDENT WAS INJURED WHEN SHE COLLIDED WITH ANOTHER STUDENT DURING A SUPERVISED GAME; THE GAME WAS DEEMED AGE-APPROPRIATE AND THE SUPERVISION WAS DEEMED ADEQUATE; THE SCHOOL DISTRICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE GAS COMPANY’S LIABILITY FOR A GAS EXPLOSION TRIGGERED BY A TREE UPROOTED DURING A HURRICANE, GAS COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANKS’ COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND 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

OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY CONSTITUTED GOOD CAUSE FOR A LATE (POST-NOTE-OF-ISSUE)... THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL...