You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER INJURY FROM A WOODEN CONCRETE FORM FALLING OVER...

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER INJURY FROM A WOODEN CONCRETE FORM FALLING OVER WERE COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff raised questions of fact about whether injury caused by a 50-poind wooden concrete form falling over was covered by Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6):

… [P]laintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether plaintiff’s injuries flowed directly from the application of the force of gravity to the form, whether the weight of the form could generate a significant amount of force as it fell and whether plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused by the lack of a safety device of the kind required by the statute … . …

Plaintiff also raised triable issues as to his Labor Law § 241(6) claim predicated on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-2.2(d), inasmuch as that section provides that stripped concrete forms “shall be promptly stockpiled or removed from areas in which persons are required to work or pass.” The evidence indicated … that the concrete forms were scattered about the garage area following concrete work performed in the garage two weeks earlier by plaintiff’s employer, the cement contractor. Lopez v 106 LPA LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 06481, First Dept 12-19-23

Practice Point: Here a wooden form weighing 50 pounds, which was leaning against a wall, fell over on plaintiff. There were questions of fact whether this gravity-related event was covered by Labor Law 240(1), and whether violation of the Industrial Code provision requiring the stacking of concrete forms was covered by Labor Law 241(6).

 

You might also like
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PEBBLE-SIZED DEBRIS WHICH FELL ON PLAINTIFF AND ALLEGEDLY SERIOUSLY INJURED HIS EYE GAVE RISE TO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) (FIRST DEPT).
DEALERSHIP HAD NOT TRANSFERRED OWNERSHIP OF THE CAR TO THE PURCHASER AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT AND WAS THEREFORE LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF AS THE OWNER, THE DRIVER STRUCK A BARRICADE WHICH IN TURN STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS WALKING ON THE SIDEWALK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) APPLIES RETROACTIVELY; THE DEFENDANT MORTGAGE COMPANY IS ESTOPPED BY CPLR 213(4)(A) FROM ASSERTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE HAS NOT EXPIRED; PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SEEKING DISCHARGE AND CANCELLATION OF THE MORTGAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
TAKING THE APPEAL AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE, THE FIRST DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS) DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE APPPELLANT JUVENILE WAS PROPERLY TRANSFERRED FROM A NONSECURE TO A SECURE FACILITY; THE JUVENILE’S MISBEHAVIOR WAS NOT THAT SERIOUS; ACS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD EXHAUSTED LESS SEVERE ALTERNATIVES (FIRST DEPT).
Criteria for Negligence on Part of Out-of-Possession Landlord with Limited Right of Reentry​
FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO MODIFY A SEPARATION AGREEMENT WHICH WAS INCORPORATED BUT NOT MERGED INTO THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE; A PLENARY ACTION IS REQUIRED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT UPDATE ITS ADDRESS FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS AND DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR DEFAULT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; HOWEVER, NO REASONABLE EXCUSE NEED BE SHOWN IN A MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317; DEFAULT VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S SUBCONTRACTOR USED A PAINT STRIPPING PRODUCT DURING AN OFFICE BUILDING RENOVATION, PLAINTIFF, AN EVENING OFFICE CLEANER, ALLEGED INJURY FROM BREATHING TOXIC FUMES, THERE IS EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD A DUTY TO WARN, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST 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

HERE THE LEVEL-THREE STOP AND FRISK FOR A SUSPECTED FIREARM WAS VALID; CRITERIA... BECAUSE THE NONPARTY WITNESS, WHO WAS PLAINTIFF’S ASSAILANT, HAD A COMMON...