You are here: / / PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH AN UNPROTECTED HOLE IN THE ATTIC FLOOR AND WAS ENTITLED...

PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH AN UNPROTECTED HOLE IN THE ATTIC FLOOR AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action. Plaintiff fell through an uncovered hole in the attic floor:

The plaintiffs’ evidence established that the injured plaintiff was exposed to an elevation risk within the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1) by virtue of the uncovered, unguarded opening in the attic floor … , that he was not provided with any safety devices to protect him from that hazard, and that the failure to provide him proper protection from the uncovered, unguarded opening was a proximate cause of his injuries … . * * *

… [T]he defendants violated Labor Law § 241(6) by failing to provide a substantial cover or safety railing for the opening in the floor in accordance with 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1)(i) and that this violation was a proximate cause of the accident … . Fuentes v 257 Toppings Path, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 01535, Second Dept 3-20-24

Practice Point: Plaintiff, who fell through an unprotected hole in the floor,, was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action.

 

You might also like
SURROGATE’S COURT SHOULD HAVE CARRIED OUT WHAT DECEDENT CLEARLY INTENDED, DESPITE THE DEFECT IN THE MEANS CHOSEN TO EFFECT HIS INTENT.
Paving Over Walk Where Plaintiff Fell Justified Striking the Answer and Granting Summary Judgment on Liability
Choice of Law Criteria Re: Insurance Contracts Explained
TOWN PLANNING BOARD PROPERLY RESCINDED A 1987 NEGATIVE SEQRA DECLARATION FOR A SUBDIVISION BECAUSE OF THE NEW REGULATORY LANDSCAPE, COURT’S REVIEW POWERS ARE LIMITED TO WHETHER THE BOARD SATISFIED SEQRA PROCEDURALLY AND SUBSTANTIVELY (SECOND DEPT).
INJURIES STEMMING FROM FAILURE TO RESTRAIN A PATIENT WITH DEMENTIA FALL UNDER THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BUILDING MANAGEMENT COMPANY WAS ACTING AS THE OWNER’S AGENT OR THAT IT HAD SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY OVER THE WORK; THEREFORE SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS AGAINST THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Orange County Executive Did Not Have Authority to Terminate County Employees Before County Legislature Eliminated Positions
HERE NOTICE OF THE DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S APPLICATION TO THE TOWN FOR THE APPROVAL OF A FENCE AND GATE WAS MAILED TO PETITIONER; PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO THE PRESUMPTION THE NOTICE ARRIVED FIVE DAYS AFTER IT WAS MAILED; THEREFORE PETITIONER’S ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS TIMELY COMMENCED (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

PLAINTIFF’S DEMAND FOR MONETARY DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF IN THIS EMPLOYMENT... A DEFECT IN THE TOP STEP OF A STAIRWAY WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE CAUSED THE TRIP AND...