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
RESPONDENT WAS A CUSTOMER OF PETITIONER SECURITIES CORPORATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY (FIRA) RULES AND THEREFORE COULD COMPEL ARBITRATION (FIRST DEPT). ​
Dismantling, Salvaging or Demolishing a Product Is Not a Foreseeable Use of the Product
DENIAL OF PAROLE PROPERLY ANNULLED, NEW HEARING BEFORE DIFFERENT COMMISSIONERS ORDERED.
A NON-DEFECTIVE CELLAR DOOR CLOSED AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S HEAD; THE LEASE DID NOT REQUIRE THE DEFENDANT OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE PREMISES; AND THERE WAS NO STRUCTURAL DEFECT; THE LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY BASIS FOR IN PERSONAM OR IN REM JURISDICTION BY THE NEW YORK COURTS, PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE AN ALBANIAN MONEY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 53 OF THE CPLR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY’S RAISING AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN A RELATED FEDERAL ACTION.
ARBITRATOR’S AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT DISPUTE REINSTATED; MONEY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO A PARTY WHICH HAD CONTRACTED WITH PLAINTIFF, BUT WITH WHICH DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE; COURT-REVIEW OF ARBITRATION AWARDS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL (FIRST DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE OFFICER WHO SEARCHED DEFENDANT’S PERSON INTENDED TO ARREST THE DEFENDANT AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH; THEREFORE THE SEARCH WAS NOT A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST AND THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (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

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