You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A FALLING BEAM WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED;...
,

PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A FALLING BEAM WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT OTHERWISE PROTECTED FROM FALLING OBJECTS; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (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 struck by a falling beam which should have been secured. The fact that plaintiff did not know where the beam came from did not preclude summary judgment:

Plaintiff’s proof showed that the support beam was a load that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking … .Further, the elevated platform was not guarded by a safety device such as netting or enclosure that would have prevented the beam from falling on plaintiff … .

While plaintiff and his coworker did not actually witness where the beam came from, plaintiff “is not required to show the exact circumstances under which the object fell,” provided he can demonstrate that the lack of a protective device called for under Labor Law § 240(1) proximately caused his injuries …  A plaintiff’s prima facie case is “not dependent on whether he had observed what had hit him, or whether the object in question was dropped or fell in some other manner ” … .  Fromel v W2005/Hines W. Fifty-Third Realty, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 05828, First Dept 11-21-24

Practice Point: Being struck by an unsecured falling object, and the failure to provide protection from falling objects, may warrant summary judgment on a Labor law 240(1) cause of action.

 

You might also like
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO OBTAIN EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, THE CASE TURNED ON WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS INTOXICATED, THE INTOXILYZER RESULTS WERE INCONSISTENT, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
STANDING ON AN INVERTED BUCKET CONSTITUTED A “PHYSICALLY SIGNIFICANT” HEIGHT-DIFFERENTIAL FOR PURPOSES OF LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1); INJURY WHILE PREVENTING A FALL IS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ACTED AS A REAL ESTATE BROKER FOR BOTH BUYER AND SELLER, DUAL AGENCY WAS NOT DISCLOSED, PLAINTIFF NOT ENTITLED TO COMMISSION, STATEMENT IN COMPLAINT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS A BROKER WAS A JUDICIAL ADMISSION, PRECLUDING ANY CLAIM PLAINTIFF WAS MERELY A FINDER (FIRST DEPT).
STIPULATION WHICH DID NOT SPECIFICALLY CALL FOR A REDUCTION OF CHILD SUPPORT UPON THE EMANCIPATION OF THE OLDEST CHILD WOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED OTHERWISE.
THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE ARBITRATION IN THIS ACTION ALLEGING NONPAYMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION WORK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE ARBITRATOR RULES ON PAYMENT FOR LABOR AND MATERIALS; COURTS RULE ON THE VALIDITY OF MECHANIC’S LIENS (FIRST DEPT).
FOR CAUSE FORFEITURE TERM OF DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGREEMENT NOT ELIMINATED BY A SUBSEQUENT FORM EXTENDING THE DUE DATE OF THE DEFERRED COMPENSATION (FIRST DEPT).
Preservation of Error, DNA Expert, Confrontation Clause.
THE “NO ACTION” PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT PRECLUDED PLAINTIFFS FROM BRINGING A JUDICIAL BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION; THE AVAILABLE CONTRACTUAL REMEDIES WERE DEEMED EXCLUSIVE (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT WAS SUPPRESSED ON APPEAL, BUT THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT... ALTHOUGH THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PETITION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE THERE...