You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS HIT BY A FALLING CHISEL WHILE SITTING UNDER A SIDEWALK BRIDGE...
,

PLAINTIFF WAS HIT BY A FALLING CHISEL WHILE SITTING UNDER A SIDEWALK BRIDGE AT THE WORKSITE TAKING A BREAK; THE CHISEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED AND THE SCAFFOLDING ABOVE PLAINTIFF WAS INADEQUATE TO PROTECT HIM FROM A FALLING OBJECT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this falling-object case was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was sitting underneath a sidewalk bridge on the jobsite, taking a break, when he was struck by a chisel. The chisel should have been secured and the scaffolding above plaintiff had gaps and therefore failed to provide adequate protection. Plaintiff did not have to prove where the chisel came from:

… “[I]njuries sustained while a worker was on site, although . . . on a break, come within the protections of Labor Law § 240(1)” … .

Plaintiff established that the chisel “required securing for the purposes of the undertaking” and that the scaffolding “proved inadequate” to protect him … . It is irrelevant that plaintiff did not know where the chisel fell from, or what caused it to fall, or hear anything fall, as “plaintiff is not required to show exactly how the [object] fell” … . Any alleged inconsistency concerning the location of the accident is immaterial … . Similarly, it does not matter where the chisel struck plaintiff’s body, as it is undisputed that it struck him. … [P]laintiff alleges without contradiction that the scaffolding was defective … , including the existence of gaps between the scaffolding planks. Contreras v City of New York, 2026 NY Slip Op 00612, First Dept 2-10-26

Practice Point: In a Labor Law 240(1) falling-object case, a plaintiff need not prove where the object came from.

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER NEGLIGENT WAXING WAS CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL.
INSTALLING WINDOW SHADES IS NOT ‘ALTERING’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND WAS NOT PART OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONER SOUGHT A TEMPORARY LICENSE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 881 TO ENTER RESPONDENT’S ADJOINING PROPERTY TO INSTALL PROTECTIONS PRIOR TO DEMOLITION WORK ON PETITIONER’S BUILDINGS; RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO FULL INDEMNIFICATION FOR ANY DAMAGE (AS OPPOSED TO INDEMNIFICATION “TO THE EXTENT COVERED BY INSURANCE”) AND TO REASONABLE EXPERT’S AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (SECOND DEPT).
NYPD PROPERLY REQUIRED TO RELEASE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ITS USE OF SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES INCLUDING FACIAL RECOGNITION, IRIS RECOGNITION AND MOBILE X-RAY TECHNOLOGIES (FIRST DEPT).
HERE THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY AN ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION WAS REJECTED BECAUSE IT DID NOT STATE THAT IT WAS MADE “UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF NEW YORK, WHICH MAY INCLUDE A FINE OR IMPRISONMENT” (FIRST DEPT).
MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY BICYCLE-RIDING IN PUBLIC PARK, DESPITE REGULATIONS PROHIBITING BICYCLE-RIDING; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT HIRED TO CARE FOR THE CHILD WHO STRUCK INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CHILD’S FATHER (RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR) OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR; QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT CARE-GIVER WAS NEGLIGENT IN SUPERVISING THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
The Availability of Pre-Suit Discovery in a Shareholder Derivative Action is a Substantive, Not a Procedural, Issue—The Law in the State Where the Corporation Is Chartered Controls
RENOVATION WORK ON DEFENDANTS’ TOWNHOUSE RENDERED PLAINTIFFS’ TOWNHOUSE, WHICH WAS NEXT DOOR, UNINHABITABLE; A LICENSE AGREEMENT WHICH GRANTED DEFENDANTS ACCESS TO PLAINTIFFS’ TOWNHOUSE INCLUDED A LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISION WHICH WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE; PLAINTIFFS’ ACTION SOUGHT SOME EQUITABLE RELIEF BUT PRIMARILY SOUGHT MONEY DAMAGES; THEREFORE PLANTIFFS’ DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK (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

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS COVERED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE POLICY... THE FIRST DEPARTMENT RULED THAT PLAINTIFF-TENANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE, AS A...