You are here: / / AFTER REMOVING THE FLASHING AND CAULKING AROUND A SECOND-STORY WINDOW,...

AFTER REMOVING THE FLASHING AND CAULKING AROUND A SECOND-STORY WINDOW, PLAINTIFF WAS GIVEN PERMISSION TO LOWER THE LIFT TO THE GROUND TO GO THE BATHROOM; THE UNSECURED WINDOW FELL ON HIS HEAD; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) action. After the flashing and caulking around the second-story window were removed, plaintiff was given permission to go to the bathroom and he lowered the scissors lift he was working from to the ground. The unsecured window fell and struck plaintiff on the head:

… [I]nasmuch as the record establishes that plaintiff and the supervisor were working together on the scissor lift to remove the window by prying off the metal flashing and removing the caulk, and that the supervisor then granted plaintiff permission to use the bathroom and lowered the lift to the ground while leaving the window unsecured on the second story of the building when the window was susceptible to falling, it cannot be said that plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident … . We thus conclude that plaintiff’s “conduct during the [window removal] process ‘raises, at most, an issue concerning his comparative negligence, which is not an available defense under Labor Law § 240 (1)’ ” … . Reyes v Episcopal Senior Hous. Greece, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 05898, Fourth Dept 11-17-23

Practice Point: Apparently because plaintiff’s supervisor gave plaintiff permission to lower the lift to go to the bathroom, leaving the second-story window he was working on unsecured, plaintiff was not the “sole proximate cause” of the accident (which would preclude Labor Law 240(1) liability). At most he was comparatively negligent, which is not a bar to summary judgment.

 

You might also like
THE PRESENCE OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE IN A HIGH CRIME AREA AND FURTIVE MOVEMENTS INSIDE THE VEHICLE DID NOT JUSTIFY THE SEIZURE OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE BY BLOCKING IT WITH THE POLICE CAR (FOURTH DEPT).
Defect Not Trivial as a Matter of Law
Untimely Demand for Reinstatement Warranted Dismissal of Action to Compel Reinstatement
PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST ALLEGED HE STRUCK A FALLEN SIGNPOST WHICH WAS OBSTRUCTING THE SIDEWALK; THE TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED HE WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF TOWN DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE REPAIR OF TOWN SIGNS (FOURTH DEPT). ​
IN THIS COMBINED ARTICLE 78 AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION, THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO ARTICLE 78 DID NOT APPLY TO THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION WHICH ONLY INVOLVED PRIVATE PARTIES, NOT A GOVERNMENT BODY OR OFFICER (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT ACTED RECKLESSLY IN THIS SKIING ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED INQUIRY TO ENSURE DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL FOR THE SORA HEARING WAS KNOWING, INTELLIGENT AND VOLUNTARY; THE NOTICE OF THE SORA HEARING PROVIDED TO DEFENDANT WAS INADEQUATE (FOURTH DEPT).
STATUTE PROHIBITING LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDERS FROM ENTERING SCHOOL GROUNDS APPLIES TO ALL LEVEL THREE OFFENDERS, NOT ONLY THOSE INCARCERATED FOR AN ENUMERATED SEX CRIME AT THE TIME OF THEIR RELEASE ON PAROLE, HERE THE PETITIONER HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN ADJUDICATED A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER BUT WAS BEING PAROLED AFTER INCARCERATION FOR A ROBBERY CONVICTION (FOURTH 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

MOTHER’S DECLINING HEALTH WAS A FACTOR IN THE COURT’S GRANTING MOTHER’S... ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF CROSSED INTO DEFENDANT’S ONCOMING LANE TO PASS A MAIL...