You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH A SECURED A-FRAME LADDER AND WAS NOT PROVIDED...
,

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH A SECURED A-FRAME LADDER AND WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH ANYTHING TO SECURE THE PIPE HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO REMOVE WHEN IT FELL AND STRUCK THE LADDER; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THE “RECALCITRANT WORKER” AND “FAILURE TO FOLLOW SAFETY INSTRUCTIONS” ALLEGATIONS DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).​ ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was standing on an unsecured A-frame ladder when a piece of pipe he was attempting remove fell and struck the ladder. The unsecured ladder was not an adequate safety device and no safety device was provided to secure the pipe. Allegations the plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker and was the proximate cause of the accident did not raise a question of fact:​

Defendants are liable for these injuries because plaintiff was not provided any safety devices except an unsecured ladder … .

Plaintiff was also not provided any safety devices to secure the pipe while it was being removed … . The use of a safety device to secure the pipe would not have impeded the work in progress … . Even if plaintiff’s coworkers were supposed to hold the pipe as he cut it, “people are not safety devices within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1)” … .

… While defendants contend that plaintiff’s foreman gave him safety instructions concerning how to cut the pipe and where to place the ladder so that it would not be hit by a falling pipe, plaintiff was not recalcitrant because he was not provided with an adequate safety device to secure the pipe “in the first instance” … .

There is also no issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident because, even if the length of the pipe that plaintiff cut was too long, he was not provided with an adequate safety device to secure the pipe … . Furthermore, even if plaintiff disregarded an instruction not to place the ladder where the pipe could hit it, that was not the sole proximate cause of the accident as “an instruction to avoid an unsafe practice is not a sufficient substitute for providing a worker with a safety device to allow him to complete his work safely” … . Jara-Salazar v 250 Park, L.L.C., 2024 NY Slip Op 05407, First Dept 10-31-24

Practice Point: If an accident is the result of the failure to provide plaintiff with adequate safety equipment, the allegation plaintiff failed to follow safety instructions will not raise a question of fact.​

Practice Point: Here the failure to provide safety devices to secure a pipe which was being removed from the ceiling when it fell was a ground for defendants’ liability.

 

You might also like
Continuous Representation Doctrine Did Not Toll the Statute of Limitations for the Legal Malpractice Cause of Action/Fraud, Excessive Fees and Unjust Enrichment Causes of Actions Were Not Duplicative of the Legal Malpractice Cause of Action/Punitive Damages Claim Properly Pled
THE FACT THAT THE CRITERIA FOR PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL WERE NOT MET DID NOT PRECLUDE AN ACTION AGAINST A CORPORATE OFFICER INDIVIDUALLY FOR PARTICIPATING IN AND BENEFITING FROM A TORT, HERE THE MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS (FIRST DEPT).
WHEN A COURT DECIDES AN ACTION BROUGHT AS A SPECIAL PROCEEDING SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS A PLENARY ACTION, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BROUGHT IN THE WRONG FORM; THE PETITION SOULD BE DEEMED A COMPLAINT, NOT A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
Complaint Sufficiently Alleged Facts to Support Piercing the Corporate Veil
PUBLICITY AGENT FOR A BROADWAY SHOW BREACHED THE COVENENT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING BY SENDING EMAILS TO AN INVESTOR DESIGNED TO SINK THE PRODUCTION.
HERE THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHEN THE PLAINTIFFS BECAME AWARE OF THE ALLEGED FRAUD; THEREFORE THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).
Recorded Conversation In Which Defendant Did Not Respond to Statements by Victim that He Had Broken Her Ribs Was Admissible
PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS BORN TWO YEARS BEFORE HIS MOTHER AND FATHER WERE MARRIED, WAS A DISTRIBUTEE OF HIS FATHER’S ESTATE; IT HAS YET TO BE DETERMINED WHETHER DEFENDANT YOUSEF FRAUDULENTLY REPRESENTED HE WAS THE SOLE HEIR WHEN HE TRANSFERRED REAL PROPERTY TO DEFENDANT BASMANOV (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

PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD WITH NO GUARDRAILS; DEFENDANTS’ AFFIDAVIT... PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A FALLING TREE LIMB; THE CITY AND COUNTY, AS PART OWNERS...