You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS TAKING DOWN A PLYWOOD FENCE WHEN A PIECE OF PLYWOOD FELL...
,

PLAINTIFF WAS TAKING DOWN A PLYWOOD FENCE WHEN A PIECE OF PLYWOOD FELL AND STRUCK HIM ON THE HEAD; PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF THE INCIDENT WAS ELEVATION-RELATED; HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was tasked with taking down a plywood fence when a piece of plywood struck his head. The Second Department held that plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence demonstrating the incident was elevation-related:

With respect to “falling object” cases, “Labor Law § 240(1) applies where the falling of an object is related to a significant risk inherent in . . . the relative elevation . . . at which materials or loads must be positioned or secured” … . A plaintiff “must demonstrate that at the time the object fell, it either was being hoisted or secured, or required securing for purposes of the undertaking” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the accident was the result of an elevation-related hazard or gravity-related risk encompassed by Labor Law § 240(1) … . The plaintiff failed to establish his height or the height and weight of the plywood sheet that struck him … . Further, the plaintiff failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to how the accident occurred and whether, under the circumstances of this case, this was a situation where a securing device of the kind enumerated in Labor Law § 240(1) would have been necessary or even expected … . Joya v E 31 Partners, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 04461, Second Dept 7-30-25

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was taking down a plywood fence when a piece of plywood “fell” and struck him on the head. The Second Department held plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to demonstrate the accident was “elevation-related.” Therefore he was not entitled to summary judgment. Before moving for summary judgment consult the statutory requirements for a violation of Labor Law 240(1).​

 

You might also like
THE ARBITRATOR’S RULING IN THIS STATUTORY, COMPULSORY ARBITRATION WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
Wife’s Stipulation Waiving Claim to Benefits Valid Even though Law Unclear at Time of Stipulation and Benefits Later Determined by Court of Appeals to Be Marital Property
DEFENDANTS IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE ENTITLED TO A HEARING PURSUANT TO CPLR 3408 RE: WHETHER THE BANK ENGAGED IN SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS IN GOOD FAITH (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S INJURY DID NOT INVOLVE THE TYPE OF ELEVATION HAZARD CONTEMPLATED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND DEFENDANTS DID NOT EXERCISE A LEVEL OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL SUFFICIENT TO TRIGGER LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (SECOND DEPT).
Purported Lack of Standing Is Not a Jurisdictional Defect/Sua Sponte Dismissal of Complaint Reversed
FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE A SUFFICIENT BASIS, I.E. STATEMENTS BY A CASEWORKER AND THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, TO DETERMINE NEW YORK HAD BEEN DIVESTED OF JURISDICTION IN THIS CUSTODY CASE; MOTHER WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
COLLEGE DID NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO TWO STUDENTS WHO DIED IN A FIRE IN THE OFF-CAMPUS HOUSE THEY WERE RENTING (SECOND DEPT).
IT WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD TO RESTRICT CONTACT WITH THE INCARCERATED FATHER TO TELEPHONE CALLS (SECOND 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 EXCLUSIONARY PROVISIONS IN THIS FIRE INSURANCE POLICY WERE AMBIGUOUS AND... IF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUNS OUT ON A SATURDAY, PLAINTIFF HAS UNTIL THE...