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
THE DEFENDANT OPHTHALMOLOGICAL SURGEON’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED; PLAINTIFF LOST SIGHT IN HER RIGHT EYE AFTER CATARACT-REMOVAL SURGERY (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT TO ADD NAMES OF POLICE OFFICERS SUED AS JOHN DOES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE OFFICERS ARE NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE CITY DEFENDANT, FAILURE TO NAME THE OFFICERS WAS NOT A MISTAKE, AND PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MAKE A DILIGENT EFFORT TO LEARN THE OFFICERS’ NAMES BEFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS EXPIRED (FIRST DEPT).
IN THE CONTEXT OF A LAWSUIT BY THE BOARD MEMBERS OF AN UNINCORPORATED CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION AGAINST THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD, NEITHER THE REAL PROPERTY LAW (RPL) NOR THE BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW (BCL) APPLIES TO THE FORMER PRESIDENT’S DEMAND FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES ASSOCIATED WITH DEFENDING THE ACTION; THE BY-LAWS AND THE COMMON LAW RULE THAT THE PARTIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ATTORNEY’S FEES CONTROL (FIRST DEPT).
Elements of Defamation, Invasion of Privacy and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Explained
Landlord Properly Granted Summary Judgment in Action Stemming from an Assault on Landlord’s Premises—Plaintiff Unable to Raise a Question of Fact Whether the Assailants Were Intruders, as Opposed to Tenants or Invitees
Family Court Should Have Granted an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal as the Least Restrictive Dispositional Alternative in a Juvenile Delinquency Proceeding
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON WHETHER MOTHER’S ADDRESS SHOULD BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL; FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO THE THERAPIST TO DETERMINE FATHER’S LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION IN THE CHILD’S THERAPY (FIRST DEPT).
Exclusion of Defendant’s Brother from the Courtroom Based Upon the Fear of a Testifying Witness Was Proper, Despite Lack of Express Findings by Trial Judge

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

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...