You are here: / / AS PLAINTIFF WAS REMOVING DUCTS FROM THE CEILING, A PORTION OF A DUCT STRUCK...

AS PLAINTIFF WAS REMOVING DUCTS FROM THE CEILING, A PORTION OF A DUCT STRUCK PLAINTIFF AND THE A-FRAME LADDER CAUSING HIM AND THE LADDER TO FALL TO THE FLOOR; IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE LADDER WAS “UNSECURED;” PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SHOW THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this ladder-fall case. Plaintiff was provided with an A-frame ladder to remove duct work from the ceiling. A portion of the duct fell causing the ladder to tip and plaintiff fell to the floor. The court noted that plaintiff need not prove the ladder was defective. In addition, summary judgment is appropriate even where, as here, plaintiff is the only witness to the incident:

Labor Law § 240(1) “mandates that owners and contractors provide devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to persons performing work covered by the statute” … . As the building owner, defendant had the duty to provide proper protection to plaintiff, a worker, pursuant to section 240(1) … .

For purposes of liability under section 240(1), “[i]t is sufficient . . . that adequate safety devices to prevent the ladder from slipping or to protect the plaintiff from falling were absent” … . Here, plaintiff’s testimony that he was not provided with any other safety protection except an unsecured ladder, which fell along with plaintiff when both were hit by the duct, established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … . Rivera v 712 Fifth Ave. Owner LP, 2024 NY Slip Op 03562, First Dept 7-2-24

Practice Point: If plaintiff falls from an “unsecured” A-frame ladder, summary judgment on the Labor Las 240(1) cause of action is appropriate even where there is no proof the ladder was defective and there were no witnesses.

 

You might also like
COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS’ FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND COUNSEL DURING THE SALE OF PLAINTIFFS’ BUSINESS TO DEFENDANT ARE PRIVILEGED (FIRST DEPT).
AN UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSE OF ACTION IS NOT AVAILABLE WHERE A CONTRACT COVERS THE RELEVANT ISSUE, EVEN IF THE DEFENDANTS ARE NONSIGNATORIES; UNJUST ENRICHMENT IS NOT A “CATCH ALL” CAUSE OF ACTION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
NONSIGNATORY NOT BOUND BY ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN ENGAGEMENT LETTER (FIRST DEPT).
CHILD’S ATTORNEY HAD STANDING TO OBJECT TO THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S CHILD SUPPORT RULINGS, AN ADOPTIVE SUBSIDY IS A RESOURCE OF THE ADOPTED CHILD AND SHOULD BE PAID TO THE ADOPTIVE MOTHER ON THE CHILD’S BEHALF UNTIL THE CHILD TURNS 21, EVEN THOUGH MOTHER NO LONGER CARES FOR THE CHILD (FIRST DEPT).
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED SLIP AND FALL PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER A BAVARIAN STEM DONOR REGISTRY INVOLVED IN DECEDENT’S PHYSICIANS’ SEARCH FOR A BONE-MARROW MATCH TO TREAT LEUKEMIA (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES OF $1000 PER DAY FOR THE TIME PLAINTIFFS WERE UNABLE TO LIVE IN THEIR TOWNHOUSE BECAUSE OF THE DEFENDANTS’ RENOVATIONS NEXT DOOR (FIRST DEPT).
THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR COUNSEL OF HIS CHOICE, ASSIGNED COUNSEL’S DISPARAGING REMARKS, AND ASSIGNED COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY, AMOUNTED TO A DEPRIVATION OF DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL; GUILTY PLEA WITHDRAWN AND VACATED (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

A DECEASED PARTY’S ADMISSIONS ARE NOT HEARSAY AS AGAINST THAT PARTY’S... PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER OWNED BY A CONTRACTOR, DAL, HE DID NOT...