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
Family Court Should Not Have Directed that Visitation With the Father Be Only to the Extent Agreed Upon by the Parties Without Holding a Hearing—There Is a Presumption Visitation with a Noncustodial Parent Is In the Best Interests of the Child, Even Where the Noncustodial Parent Is Incarcerated—Absent Exceptional Circumstances, Visitation with a Noncustodial Parent Is Always Appropriate
DEFENDANT’S MOTION PAPERS AND EXHIBITS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER HE WOULD HAVE PLED GUILTY IF HE WERE AWARE HE COULD BE DEPORTED BASED ON THE PLEA; THEREFORE THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE MOTION WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BASED UPON INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY SUPREME COURT (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE THE ZONING BOARD DID NOT ADDRESS THE MERITS OF AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE, SUPREME COURT COULD NOT ADDRESS THE MERITS.
PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DELAYED SIX YEARS BEFORE RESTORING THE ACTION TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR AND FOUR YEARS BEFORE MOVING FOR LEAVE TO ENTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT; INTEREST ON THE MORTGAGE DEBT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLLED FOR THOSE PERIODS (SECOND DEPT).
THE PETITION FOR GUARDIANSHIP OF THE CHILD SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE PETITIONER IS NOT RELATED TO THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
DEFFENDANT, WHO WAS 14 AT THE TIME OF THE ROBBERY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER.
THE TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS’ FAILURE TO ISSUE A DECISION ON PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PERMIT AND AN AREA VARIANCE WITHIN THE 62 DAYS PRESCRIBED BY THE TOWN LAW WAS NOT A DENIAL BY DEFAULT; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND THE MATTER WAS NOT RIPE FOR REVIEW; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ANNULLED THE “DEFAULT DENIAL” AND ORDERED THE TOWN TO ISSUE THE PERMIT AND VARIANCE (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...