You are here: / / THERE IS NO BRIGHT-LINE MINIMUM HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL FOR AN ELEVATION HAZARD...
,

THERE IS NO BRIGHT-LINE MINIMUM HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL FOR AN ELEVATION HAZARD PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240(1); HERE A FALL OF 10.5 TO 20 INCHES FROM A STACK OF PALLETS WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action based upon a fall from a height of 10.5 to 20 inches. The court noted that, despite caselaw holding that a fall of 12 inches did not trigger the statute, there is no bright-line minimum height differential for an elevation hazard. Plaintiff was standing on a stack of pallets to operate a masonry saw when a plank broke and he fell:

The fact that plaintiff fell from a height of approximately 10 ½ to 20 inches is not a bar to summary judgment because the height differential is not, as a matter of law, de minimis. While this Court has previously held that a height differential of at most 12 inches above the floor was insufficient to find an elevation-related risk … , the jurisprudence of this Court has since evolved, recently reiterating that “[t]here is no bright-line minimum height differential that determines whether an elevation hazard exists” … . We have repeatedly found violations of Labor Law § 240(1) predicated upon falls from similar heights as the one at bar (see Ferguson v Durst Pyramid, LLC, 178 AD3d 634, 635 [1st Dept 2019] [fall from inverted bucket]; see also Megna, 306 AD2d at 164 [fall from temporary two-step wooden staircase]; Brown, 137 AD3d at 703-704 [fall through an opening in latticework rebar deck to plywood 12 to 18 inches below]; Arrasti, 60 AD3d at 583 [fall from ramp to the floor 18 inches below]; Haskins, 227 AD3d at 409 [fall into hole 2 to 2 ½ feet deep]). Furthermore, here, the senior superintendent of defendant Tishman Construction Corporation of New York admitted that the makeshift pallet structure was an “improper work platform” that was “against the most basic safety rules.” Palumbo v Citigroup Tech., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 04298, First Dept 7-24-25

Practice Point: There is no bright-line minimum height differential for an elevation hazard which will trigger liability under Labor Law 240(1). Here a fall of between 10.5 and 20 inches from a stack of pallets warranted summary judgment.

 

You might also like
TO DEFEAT A CPLR 3215(C) MOTION TO DISMISS AN ACTION AS ABANDONED, “SUFFICIENT CAUSE” FOR A DELAY IN MAKING A MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT MUST BE DEMONSTRATED, NOT THE CASE HERE; THE DISSENTERS ARGUED PARTICIPATION IN THE LITIGATION PROCEEDINGS WITH RESPECT TO OTHER PARTIES DEMONSTRATED THERE WAS NO INTENT TO ABANDON THE ACTION; THE MAJORITY REJECTED THE DISSENTERS’ ARGUMENT, IN PART BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RAISED BELOW (FIRST DEPT).
PARTIES HAD CONSENTED TO PROCEDURES WHICH DEVIATED FROM THE CPLR, SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS, ALTHOUGH UNTIMELY UNDER THE CPLR, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEEMED TIMELY (FIRST DEPT).
INSURANCE REGULATION WHICH PROHIBITS TITLE INSURERS FROM PROVIDING VALUABLE INDUCEMENTS TO ATTRACT TITLE INSURANCE BUSINESS IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE FACED A 45-YEAR SENTENCE AFTER TRIAL WHEN THE ACTUAL SENTENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN CAPPED AT 20 YEARS; DEFENDANT’S DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY WAS NOT KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY MADE (FIRST DEPT).
CASE REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE GUARANTY LAW WHICH WAS FOUND TO HAVE BARRED PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR CERTAIN AMOUNTS (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS SEXUAL ABUSE CASE, THE CHILD’S MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS SHOULD BE REVIEWED BY THE JUDGE IN CAMERA TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY RECORDS ARE RELEVANT TO THE RESPONDENT’S CLAIM THE CHILD FABRICATED THE SEXUAL ABUSE ALLEGATIONS; FAMILY COURT PROPERLY DENIED RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR DISCOVERY OF THE RECORDS (FIRST DEPT). ​
SEIZURE OF CREDIT CARDS FROM UNDER THE HOOD OF DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ILLEGAL SEARCH, POLICE WERE FOLLOWING A PROCEDURE TO SAFEGUARD THE CAR FROM THEFT (FIRST DEPT).
THE BUILDING OWNER AND MANAGER WERE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS UNDER A POLICY ISSUED TO THE CONTRACTOR HIRED TO RENOVATE CONCRETE WALKWAYS; THE OWNER AND MANAGER ARE ENTITLED TO COVERAGE FOR A SLIP AND FALL ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY PAINTING THE WALKWAYS ALL THE SAME COLOR AND THEREBY DISGUISING A CHANGE IN ELEVATION (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 FIRST DEPARTMENT, AGREEING WITH THE SECOND, DETERMINED THE ADMINISTRATION... THE PURPOSE AND REACH OF THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) EXPLAINED...