You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DIVING UNDER A TRUCK WHEN THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION...
,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DIVING UNDER A TRUCK WHEN THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION AS A BROKEN UTILITY POLE WITH LIVE ELECTRIC WIRES WAS BEING HOISTED; THE WORK WAS NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SO THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION; QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF THE EXPLOSION AND SUPERVISORY CONTROL PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants’ summary judgment motion on the Labor Law 241(6) and 200 causes of action should not have been granted. Plaintiff was 150 feet away from a broken utility pole which needed to be removed. The pole was damaged when struck by a vehicle and the attached electric wires were live. Plaintiff was injured diving under a truck when there was an explosion as the pole was being hoisted:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the work they were performing at the time of the incident constituted routine maintenance or repairs not within the ambit of Labor Law § 241(6) … . The defendants’ evidentiary submissions indicated that the incident occurred while the defendants were hoisting a portion of the utility pole to enable the total replacement of the pole, which had been severely damaged after a vehicle hit the pole. Thus, the defendants’ evidentiary submissions did not demonstrate, prima facie, that the work involved merely “replacing components that require replacement in the course of normal wear and tear” …. . * * *

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they had no authority to supervise or control the work being performed by the defendants’ own employees at the time of the incident … . Further, to the extent the plaintiff alleged that the incident was caused by a dangerous condition, the defendants did not address the issues of whether they created or had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition … . Accordingly, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 … . Ricottone v PSEG Long Is., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 06155, Second Dept 11-29-23

Practice Point: Labor Law 241(6) does not apply to routine maintenance. Replacing a utility pole struck by a vehicle is not routine maintenance.

Practice Point: Where there is a question of fact about the cause of dangerous condition and whether defendant has supervisory control over the worksite, summary judgment in favor of defendant on a Labor Law 200 cause of action is precluded.

 

You might also like
COMPLEX DECISION EXPLAINING BLACK LETTER LAW ON LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION, CONTRACTUAL AND IMPLIED INDEMNIFICATION, AND INSURANCE COVERAGE ISSUES (SECOND DEPT).
WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW RESULTED IN REVERSAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICERS REJECTED.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE ISSUE OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE CAN BE ADDRESSED AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE IF RAISED AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF OR CREATE THE ICY CONDITION, THEIR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE OPPOSING PAPERS.
PETITIONER-REPORTER PREVAILED IN THE FOIL ACTION DESPITE THE AVAILABILITY OF SOME OF THE REQUESTED INFORMATION ON A PUBLIC WEBSITE; THEREFORE PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AND LITIGATION COSTS (SECOND DEPT).
CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE ALLEGATIONS PLAINTIFF WOULD NOT HAVE LOST ITS DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) STATUS HAD DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS NOT FAILED TO FILE AN ADMINSTRATIVE APPEAL AND REQUEST A HEARING WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO SURVIVE A MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO CPLR 3211 (A) (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RELEASE WAS PROCURED BY FRAUD, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE PARTY TWICE FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY WITHOUT LISTING THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AS AN ASSET, THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REOPENED AND THE ACTION WAS ADDED AS AN ASSET; AT THAT POINT THE BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE BECAME THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AND THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, BASED UPON THE PARTY’S INITIAL FAILURE TO LIST THE ACTION AS AN ASSET, DID NOT APPLY TO THE TRUSTEE (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

THE 90-DAY DEMAND REQUIRED BY CPLR 3216 WAS NOT PROVIDED BY THE COURT’S... THE STIPULATION RE: SHARING HUSBAND’S PENSION AT A FUTURE DATE WAS NOT...