You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO AVOID A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD...

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO AVOID A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD WHEN THE PLANK HE WAS STANDING ON SHIFTED; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was injured when he attempted to avoid a fall from a scaffold when a plank he was standing on shifted:

… [T]he plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on so much of the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) through the submission of the plaintiff’s affidavit and a copy of the transcript of his deposition testimony “which demonstrated that the scaffold failed to afford him proper protection for the work being performed, and that this failure was a proximate cause of his injuries” … . In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. “They did not offer any evidence, other than mere speculation, to refute the plaintiff[‘s] showing or to raise a bona fide issue as to how the accident occurred” … . The defendants’ contention that the alleged injuries were only tangentially related to the effects of gravity and/or an elevation-related risk is without merit … .  Wilson v Bergon Constr. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 04616, Second Dept 9-13-23

Practice Point: Apparently the plaintiff was injured when he attempted to avoid a fall from a scaffold. It is not clear whether plaintiff actually fell. Even so, he was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of the action.

 

You might also like
EXPERT AFFIDAVIT STATING PLAINTIFF PEDESTRIAN DID NOT LOOK FOR TRAFFIC BEFORE CROSSING WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
Judge’s Mistrial Order Precluded Retrial—Double Jeopardy
THE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S ASSERTION THAT THE FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE ATHEROSCLEROTIC CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE PROXIMATELY CAUSED DECEDENT’S PREMATURE DEATH WAS SUFFICIENT TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ON CAUSATION IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Forcing Appellant to Proceed Without Counsel in a Family Court Act Article 8 Action Required Reversal of Order of Protection
THE ORDER ISSUED AFTER A TRAVERSE HEARING FINDING DEFENDANTS WERE NOT PROPERLY SERVED IS APPEALABLE PURSUANT TO CPLR 5501 (C); THE ORDER BRINGS UP FOR APPEAL WHETHER THE TRAVERSE HEARING WAS NECESSARY; THE MAJORITY C0NCLUDED THE HEARING WAS NOT NECESSARY; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS PRESENTED EVIDENCE THE BANK ACCEPTED PAYMENTS IN LESS THAN THE REQUIRED AMOUNT AFTER THE ALLEGED DEFAULT; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT)
Court Did Not Abuse Discretion In Not Sentencing Pursuant to Jenna’s Law Even Though Defendant Qualified​
Murder Conviction Against the Weight of the Evidence—Strangulation Was the Result of an Attempt to Increase Sexual Pleasure—No Intent to Kill

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

A PROPERTY OWNER DOES NOT HAVE A DUTY TO INSTALL A NON-SLIP FLOOR OR A GRAB... A DEFAULTING PARTY ADMITS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT; THEREFORE LIABILITY...