You are here: / / PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN A TEMPORARY SCAFFOLD HE HAD BUILT COLLAPSED; DEFENDANTS...

PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN A TEMPORARY SCAFFOLD HE HAD BUILT COLLAPSED; DEFENDANTS ARGUED PLAINTIFF DID NOT FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PROPERLY BUILD THE SCAFFOLD; THE RECALCITRANT-WORKER DEFENSE DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NEVER PROVIDED WITH AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE AND PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WILL NOT DEFEAT A LABOR LAW 240(1) SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s summary judgment motion on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should have been granted. Defendant raised the recalcitrant worker defense which the First Department found inapplicable. Plaintiff was standing on a scaffold when it collapsed. Defendant argued plaintiff disregarded instructions on how to construct the scaffold, a comparative-negligence argument which  will not defeat a summary judgment motion:

[Defendants’] reliance on the recalcitrant worker defense was misplaced because that defense requires a showing that plaintiff refused to use a safety device that was provided to him … . Defendants’ allegations that plaintiff disregarded instructions on how to properly build the scaffolding, built the scaffolding incorrectly, selected defective wood for its construction, and failed to have the scaffold inspected before its use, are insufficient to establish that plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker … . Indeed, defendants failed to demonstrate whether the scaffolding, if properly constructed, constituted adequate protection under Labor Law § 240(1). Thus, the recalcitrant worker defense “has no application where, as here, no adequate safety devices were provided” … , and any conduct on plaintiff’s part would go to comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) claim … . Peralta v Hunter Roberts Constr. Group LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 05928, First Dept 10-28-25

Practice Point: The recalcitrant-worker defense only applies if plaintiff was provided with an adequate safety device and refuses to use it, not the case here.

 

You might also like
Trivial Defect in Sidewalk Not Actionable/First Floor Tenant Abutting Sidewalk Not a Proper Defendant
THE INSURED DID NOT SHOW UP FOR THE SCHEDULED INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMS IN THIS NO-FAULT POLICY CASE, ARBITRATOR’S AWARD IRRATIONALLY IGNORED THE CONTROLLING LAW (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH A STOREFRONT WINDOW IN DEFENDANT PLANET ROSE’S KARAOKE BAR; GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FAILURE TO INSTALL TEMPERED GLASS MAY HAVE BEEN NEGLIGENT; BY THE TERMS OF THE LEASE, THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD, DEFENDANT 219 AVE. A, COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE (FIRST DEPT).
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED A NEW THEORY OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
Trial Court’s Failure to Address Defendant’s Requests to Proceed Pro Se Required Reversal
Failure to Timely Raise a Late-Notice Defense to Coverage May Constitute a Waiver of the Defense
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION BASED UPON ALLEGEDLY ADULTERATED FUEL OIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE NUMEROSITY REQUIREMENT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE; DISMISSAL WAS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND LEAVE TO RENEW WAS GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
CELL PHONE COMPANY WITNESS WAS NOT AN ENGINEER AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY AS AN EXPERT ABOUT HOW FAR DEFENDANT’S PHONE WAS FROM THE TOWER, POLICE OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY ABOUT THE VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT, JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE MARSHALED THE EVIDENCE TO FAVOR THE PROSECUTION, THESE ERRORS, AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL ERRORS, CUMULATIVELY DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF A FAIR TRIAL (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

A STATEMENT OF READINESS (SOR) IS TIMELY FILED WHEN IT IS ELECTRONICALLY FILED... DEFENDANT DID NOT ADMIT HE INTENDED TO COMMIT A CRIME IN THE BUILDING HE ENTERED...