You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS NOT IN AN AREA IN WHICH FALLING OBJECTS COULD BE ANTICIPATED,...
, ,

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT IN AN AREA IN WHICH FALLING OBJECTS COULD BE ANTICIPATED, SO THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A BOARD INTENTIONALLY THROWN INTO THE EXCAVATED AREA WHERE HE WAS WORKING; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action should have been dismissed. Plaintiff was in an excavated area four or five feet below ground level when a worker at ground level threw a board into the excavated area which struck plaintiff. Apparently throwing boards into the excavated area was part of the work, so the Labor Law 200 and negligent supervision causes of action survived:

Defendant thus demonstrated prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that plaintiff was not injured by an “object [that] fell, while being hoisted or secured, because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute” … .T he burden thus shifted to plaintiff to raise a triable issue of fact, which plaintiff failed to do” … , requiring dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. * * *

Defendant’s proof showed that the dig area was not “normally exposed to falling material or objects” (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 [a] [1]), and, in any event, plaintiff was working only four to five feet below grade. Thus, defendant demonstrated the “overhead protection” regulation was not applicable … . Accordingly, defendant met its preliminary burden to show that plaintiff could not recover under Labor Law § 241 (6) as a matter of law … . Plaintiff’s proof does not raise an issue of fact on this point, thus dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim should have been granted … . James v Marini Homes, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00132, Second Dept 1-9-25

Practice Point: If the safety precautions related to falling objects are not applicable because the plaintiff was working in an area where falling objects could not be anticipated, then the “falling objects” protections in Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) will not be triggered.

 

You might also like
THE STAY-AWAY ORDER OF PROTECTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED BASED SOLELY ON A PSYCHOLOGIST’S REPORTS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY TESTIMONY (THIRD DEPT).
LIABILITY UNDER CONTRACT CAN ARISE IN THE ABSENCE OF PRIVITY WHERE A PARTY IS A JOINT VENTURER OR PARTNER WITH A SIGNATORY TO THE CONTRACT.
ONCE AN ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE EVALUATION WAS ORDERED THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE DRUG TREATMENT COURT FOR THE JUDICIAL DIVERSION HEARING, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
FATHER DENIED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).
LEAVING A 16 MONTH OLD CHILD UNATTENDED IN A BATHTUB WITH FOUR INCHES OF WATER CONSTITUTED NEGLECT, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
THE APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE’S DECISION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE THE APPLICATION DID NOT SPECIFY WHEN THE OBJECTIONS TO THE DECISION WERE MADE (THIRD DEPT).
Employer Was Not Prejudiced by Claimant’s Failure to Give Timely Notice of the Accident, Claim Allowed
ALTHOUGH THE NOTE WAS NOT NEGOTIABLE, IT SUFFICIENTLY MEMORIALIZED THE DEBT UNDER CONTRACT PRINCIPLES.

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 STANDARD FOR AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT’S REVIEW OF A SENTENCE... DETERMINING SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE BY COMPARING THE RANGE OF MOTION OF LIMBS ON...