You are here: / / THE COLLAPSE OF A NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE WAS FORESEEABLE; PLAINTIFF, WHO...
,

THE COLLAPSE OF A NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE WAS FORESEEABLE; PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS STRUCK BY A PIECE OF CONCRETE FROM THE STRUCTURE, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the collapse of a neighboring structure which resulted in a piece of concrete striking the plaintiff, was foreseeable. Therefore the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action:

Contrary to defendants’ position, the event was foreseeable, rendering Labor Law § 240(1) applicable and summary judgment on that claim appropriate … . Whether the collapse of a permanent structure is foreseeable is analyzed “not in a strict negligence sense, but in the sense of foreseeability of exposure to an elevation-related risk” … . Here, the possibility of insecurity in the foundation developing after adjacent demolition was well known to defendants, as evinced by the need for a support plan in the first instance. As noted by an expert engaged by defendants themselves in earlier motion practice, photographs of the facade showed poorly consolidated and deteriorated concrete with numerous voids, obvious discontinuities, several cold unbonded joints, and the appearance of having been constructed without steel reinforcing bars. It was thus foreseeable that the newly exposed and unsupported wall, or a portion thereof, would fail.

Moreover, plaintiffs established that [plaintiff’s] injuries were caused by the lack of any safety device of the kind enumerated in Labor Law § 240(1) to secure the neighboring foundation. Plaintiffs’ expert established that defendants failed to properly underpin the foundation of the adjoining building by bracing and shoring the “poor conditions of the concrete and the obvious presence of cold joints within the excavated pins of the underpinning work.” Moises-Ortiz v FDB Acquisition LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 05746, First Dept 10-16-25

Practice Point: Here the collapse of the neighboring structure, injuring plaintiff, was foreseeable, entitling plaintiff to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DID NOT PLEAD THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, THE DEFENSE WAS PROPERLY RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT).
ACCIDENT DID NOT INVOLVE AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTORS DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OF THE PLAINTIFF, THE AREA OR THE WORK, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER AND MANAGER WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE UNDER THE STORM-IN-PROGRESS DOCTRINE, 18 INCHES OF SNOW HAD FALLEN LESS THAN TWO HOURS BEFORE; PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON WATER ON STAIRS IN THE LOBBY; PLAINTIFF’S OWN TESTIMONY DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO FILE A LATE ANSWER PURSUANT TO CPLR 3012 AFTER A DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING WAS PROPERLY DENIED, FIVE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED EXPLAINED, ALLEGATION DEFENDANTS WERE CHEATED WAS NOT A DEFENSE (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT HAD A RIGHT TO BE PRESENT WHEN THE PROSECUTOR SUCCESSFULLY ARGUED ADDITIONAL MOLINEUX EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ADMITTED AT TRIAL, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
The Agency’s Determination Was Based Upon Its Own Precedents and Related Jurisprudence and Was Therefore “Rationally Based”—The Determination Should Not, Therefore, Be Disturbed by a Court—A Court May Not Substitute Its Own Judgment for that of the Agency
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION AT THE ORIGINAL PLEA AND SENTENCING, HE WAS SO INFORMED AT RESENTENCING; DEFENDANT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY AT RESENTENCING TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA AND THE SENTENCING JUDGE WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO INFORM DEFENDANT, SUA SPONTE, OF THE AVAILABILITY OF A MOTION TO WITHDRAW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS RESENTENCE PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
THE JURY VERDICT FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER INJURIES WAS NOT INCONSISTENT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (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

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE ELEMENTS OF A CHARGED OFFENSE... THE SEARCH WAS NOT A VALID INVENTORY SEARCH; THE HANDGUN FOUND IN DEFENDANT’S...