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
GIVING A SECOND ALLEN CHARGE AND ALLOWING THE JURY TO CONTINUE DELIBERATING TO 5 OR 6 PM ON A FRIDAY, KNOWING THAT THREE JURORS HAD TRAVEL PLANS FOR MONDAY, DID NOT CONSTITUTE COERCING THE VERDICT, PROVIDING BOTH WRITTEN AND ORAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS WAS NOT IMPROPER (FIRST DEPT).
Unambiguous Language In a Rider and an Exclusion In a Financial Institution Bond Precluded Coverage of Losses Stemming from the “Madoff” Ponzi Scheme
IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT WAS EXEMPT FROM THE NYC SIDEWALK LAW (MAKING ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS RESPONSIBLE FOR SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE) BECAUSE HIS PROPERTY IS OWNER-OCCUPIED; HOWEVER THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT IS LIABLE UNDER THE COMMON-LAW “SPECIAL USE” DOCTRINE; DEFENDANT USED THE SIDEWALK AS A DRIVEWAY FOR HIS GARAGE (FIRST DEPT).
GLOMAR RESPONSE, NEITHER CONFIRMING NOR DENYING THE EXISTENCE OF DOCUMENTS, APPROPRIATE UNDER THE FACTS.
SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER PLAINTIFF’S HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CLAIMS; THE CONDUCT OCCURRED WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PHYSICALLY IN NEW YORK AND DID NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE TERMS, CONDITIONS OR EXTENT OF HER EMPLOYMENT WITHIN NEW YORK; THE FACTS WERE NOT DESCRIBED (FIRST DEPT).
THE LOCAL LAW WHICH DISQUALIFIES CANDIDATES WHO HAVE CERTAIN FELONY CONVICTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INTERPRETED TO APPLY ONLY TO CONVICTIONS AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF THE LOCAL LAW (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S SUBCONTRACTOR USED A PAINT STRIPPING PRODUCT DURING AN OFFICE BUILDING RENOVATION, PLAINTIFF, AN EVENING OFFICE CLEANER, ALLEGED INJURY FROM BREATHING TOXIC FUMES, THERE IS EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD A DUTY TO WARN, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF AND HIS ATTORNEY EACH SANCTIONED $5000 FOR FRIVOLOUS ACTION AND APPEAL (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...