You are here: / / PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD WITHOUT GUARDRAILS; DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENCE...
,

PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD WITHOUT GUARDRAILS; DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENCE THAT GUARDRAILS WERE AVAILABLE WAS NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this scaffold-fall case was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Defendants argued that guardrails for the scaffold were available but plaintiff failed to use them. The First Department held that the evidence of the availability of the guardrails was not strong enough to raise a question of fact:

“Liability under section 240(1) does not attach when the safety devices that plaintiff alleges were absent were readily available at the work site, albeit not in the immediate vicinity of the accident” … . Caselaw has not further defined the meaning of “readily available,” beyond qualifying that a safety device need not be “in the immediate vicinity.” Nonetheless, the seminal Gallagher case itself specifies that the worker should at least “kn[o]w where to find the safety devices” … . Conversely, a defendant may do much to show that safety devices were readily available by showing that the worker knew “exactly where they could be found” … .

While defendants indicated that workers were generally aware that railings were available throughout the site, defendants failed to show that their precise locations were made known to the workers. The affidavits of the three foremen and coworker are conclusory, the record does not specify or even approximate the location of the guardrails, and at oral argument, counsel was unable to specify where these safety devices could be found. Moreover, although the record contains photos of the subject scaffold, there are no photographs of the missing guardrails that might serve as a guide to their possible location. Defendant’s proof demonstrated only “[t]he general availability of safety equipment at a work site [which] does not relieve the defendants of liability” … . Perez v 1334 York, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00066, First Dept 1-7-25

Practice Point: Although a defendant may escape liability in a Labor Law 240(1) action if the plaintiff failed to use available safety equipment, proof of the “general availability” of the safety equipment does not raise a question of fact. The proof of available safety equipment must be specific. Here there was no evidence the defendants even knew where the safety devices were.

 

You might also like
Copyright Infringement Action Re Pre-1972 Recordings Not Precluded by “Safe Harbor” Provision of Digital Millenium Copyright Act
Under the Criteria Recently Announced by the Court of Appeals, the Proof Was Not Sufficient to Justify Placing the Respondent Under Strict and Intensive Supervision in the Community
DEFENDANT’S INNOCENT TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF A WEAPON WAS THE RESULT OF HIS DISARMING A MAN WHO WAS ASSAULTING THE MAN’S WIFE; THE POSSESSION-OF-A-WEAPON CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE FACT THAT THE CITY BUILDING CODE DID NOT REQUIRE DISABLED-ACCESS TO THE THIRD FLOOR OF DEFENDANT RESTAURANT DID NOT CONFLICT WITH THE FACT THAT THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW MAY REQUIRE SUCH ACCESS (FIRST DEPT).
BUILDING OWNERS EXPENDED SUFFICIENT FUNDS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF AN APARTMENT TO JUSTIFY AN EXEMPTION FROM RENT STABILIZATION (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT MANUFACTURED VALVES CONTAINING ASBESTOS; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT HAD A SMALL OFFICE IN NYC THE VALVES WERE MANUFACTURED AND SOLD IN CONNECTICUT, WHERE PLAINTIFF LIVED AND WORKED; THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEW YORK AND PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS WAS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR NEW YORK JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT). ​
Untimely Summary Judgment Motion Denied—No Showing of Good Cause for the Delay/Motion Was Mislabeled as a Cross Motion
REMOVAL OF THE CHILDREN FROM MOTHER’S CARE WITHOUT NOTICE DEPRIVED MOTHER OF HER RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS; THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT REMOVAL OF THE CHILDREN (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

THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BEGAN TO RUN WHEN THE LANDLORD COULD HAVE... THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE OFFICER WHO SEARCHED DEFENDANT’S PERSON...