You are here: / / A 400-POUND DUCT LIFT TOPPLED OFF AN UNSTEADY RAMP AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF;...
,

A 400-POUND DUCT LIFT TOPPLED OFF AN UNSTEADY RAMP AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF; ALTHOUGH THE LIFT DROPPED ONLY 10 TO 12 INCHES, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff was struck by a 400 pound duct lift which toppled off an unsteady ramp. The lift fell only 10 to 12 inches, but met the criteria for a gravity-related accident covered by Labor Law 240(1):

… Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), as the defendants failed to satisfy their prima facie burden. Although the defendants submitted evidence establishing that the alleged elevation differential measured only 10 to 12 inches, given the heavy weight of the duct lift and the amount of force it was capable of generating, the elevation differential was not de minimis … . The plaintiff submitted evidence to show that he suffered harm that flowed directly from the application of the force of gravity to the duct lift … .

Moreover, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s cross-motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The plaintiff submitted, inter alia, a transcript of his deposition testimony, which established, prima facie, that the defendants violated Labor Law § 240(1) by failing to provide an appropriate safety device, namely a secured ramp, to protect against the elevation-related hazard that was posed by maneuvering the heavy duct lift over the ramp … . Davila v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 05433, Second Dept 11-6-24

Practice Point: A heavy object falling 10 to 12 inches from an unsteady ramp, striking plaintiff, is covered by Labor Law 240(1). The incident was caused by defendants’ failure to provided an adequately secured ramp.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST STRUCK THE DOOR OF DEFENDANT’S VAN AFTER DEFENDANT HAD OPENED THE DOOR; DEFENDANT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE HAD OPENED THE DOOR SAFELY AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND DEFENDANT’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Grandparents Did Not Have Standing to Bring a Petition for Visitation
Criteria for Allowing Late Claim Described
THE MORTGAGE-PAYMENT MODIFICATION AGREEMENT DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE MORTGAGE DEBT WITHIN THE MEANING OF GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 17-101; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT START ANEW; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS MADE AWARE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS VIDEO EVIDENCE OF THE SLIP AND FALL, PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF THE UNLAWFUL DRAIN PIPE WHICH WAS THE SOURCE OF THE ICE ON THE SIDEWALK, AND EXPERT EVIDENCE; DEFENDANTS’ MERE HOPE THAT DISCOVERY WOULD REVEAL EVIDENCE TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DID NOT SUPPORT THE DENIAL OF THE MOTION AS PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT).
FORMER LAW FIRM PARTNER WAS ENTITLED TO AN ACCOUNTING; IN DETERMINING THE BUYOUT PRICE UPON THE PARTNER’S WITHDRAWAL FROM THE PARTNERSHIP, THE TERMS OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT, RATHER THAN PARTNERSHIP LAW, CONTROL (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE PERSON SERVED WAS AN AGENT OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION; CLERK’S JUDGMENT VACATED (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

MOTHER MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR RELOCATING WITH THE CHILD IN THIS CUSTODY... MOTHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED...