You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON A LADDER WHEN THE DEFECTIVE GRINDER...

ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON A LADDER WHEN THE DEFECTIVE GRINDER INJURED HIM, THE LADDER DID NOT FAIL AND THE LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED; HOWEVER THE DEFECTIVE GRINDER PRESENTED A SAFETY ISSUE COVERED BY LABOR LAW 241(6) AND THE OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR MAY BE LIABLE EVEN IF THEY DID NOT SUPERVISE THE WORKSITE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly dismissed because the ladder did not malfunction, but the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action based upon the defective grinder which kicked back and injured plaintiff should not have been dismissed. The court noted defendants had notice of the defective grinder and the property owner and the general contractor may be liable even if they did not control the worksite:

Defendants established their entitlement to summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action by submitting evidence that plaintiff’s injury was caused by the grinder and that he did not fall from the ladder. Because plaintiff’s injury did not arise from any elevation-related risk presented by the ladder, Labor Law § 240(1) does not apply … .

However, Supreme Court should have denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claim insofar as it was predicated on a violation of Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.5(c)(3). Despite defendants’ assertion otherwise, the section is a sufficiently specific safety standard to support a Labor Law § 241(6) claim, and the deposition testimony established that plaintiff’s grinder had no guard, thus violating the mandate of the regulation … . Plaintiff also proffered evidence that defendants had notice of a defect in the grinder, as he testified that he complained to his supervisor that the grinder shook and lacked a guard and the owner and general contractor bear the ultimate responsibility for safety practices at building construction sites even where they do not control or supervise the worksite … . Desprez v United Prime Broadway, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 01607, First Dept 3-19-24

Practice Point: Although plaintiff was standing on a ladder when he was injured by a defective grinder, because the ladder did not fail the incident was not elevation-related within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1).

Practice Point: Because the defective grinder raised a safety issue about which the defendants had notice, the owner and general contractor may be liable pursuant to Labor Law 241(6) even if they did not supervise the worksite.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S SUIT AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER UNDER THE WHISTLEBLOWER LAW (LABOR LAW 740) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE AMENDMENTS TO THE STATUTE APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS; PLAINTIFF’S AGE-DISCRIMINATION CAUSES OF ACTION UNDER THE STATE AND NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
Operating a Scaffold for the Benefit of an Enumerated Activity Done by Others (Caulking) Entitles Scaffold Operator to Coverage Under Labor Law 240 (1)
Insurer of Contractor for Its (Primarily) Interior Work Was Not Entitled to Summary Judgment (Disclaiming Coverage) in Action Stemming from Building Collapse of Unknown Cause
A PRIVILEGE UNDER WISCONSIN INSURANCE LAW APPLIED IN THIS NEW YORK ACTION CONCERNING INSURANCE CLAIMS STEMMING FROM THE ISSUANCE OF RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES (FIRST DEPT).
USE OF A MAKESHIFT LADDER WHEN AN A-FRAME WAS AVAILABLE OR DESCENDING THE LADDER BACKWARDS WITH SHOES UNTIED DID NOT CONSTITUTE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS A-FRAME LADDER-FALL CASE; ALTHOUGH NO DEPOSITIONS HAD BEEN TAKEN, THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO SHOW THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE (FIRST DEPT).
Landlord Not Entitled to Reformation of a Lease—Landlord Had Failed to Use Due Diligence Before Signing and Did Not Notice a Deletion Made by Plaintiff—Plaintiff Was Not Obligated to Highlight the Deletion
FAILURE TO PAY CONDOMINIUM COMMON CHARGES WAS A PROPER BASIS FOR EJECTION FROM THE CONDOMINIUM.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION THE COMPLAINT MUST ALLEGE THE ACTUAL... THE CITY OF KINGSTON PROPERLY DECLARED A RENTAL-UNIT SHORTAGE-EMERGENCY AND...