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
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE REFERENCE TO EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE WAS REQUIRED; STATUTE OF FRAUDS DID NOT REQUIRE DISMISSAL BECAUSE IT WAS ALLEGED THERE WAS NEW CONSIDERATION FOR THE PROMISE TO PAY THE DEBT OF ANOTHER (FIRST DEPT).
THE ATTEMPTED GANG ASSAULT CHARGE WAS A LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY FOR TRIAL PURPOSES (FIRST DEPT).
THE BUILDING OWNER HAD, BY CONTRACT, RELINQUISHED ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE TO DEFENDANT AMERICAN ELEVATOR AND WAS THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR THE ALLEGED ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION; THE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE INNER GATE CLOSED ON HER SHOULDER, PINNING HER, AND THE ELEVATOR THEN DESCENDED; A QUESTION OF FACT PURSUANT TO THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE WAS RAISED (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS COMPLEX BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION INVOLVING THE SALE OF A BUSINESS AND A RELATED LEASE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACTS WERE UNAMBIGUOUS AND NEITHER THE DOCTRINE OF PREVENTION NOR THE DOCTRINE OF FRUSTRATION OF PURPOSE APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).
THE CONSOLIDATED TRIAL OF TWO SEPARATE CRIMINAL TRANSACTIONS, COUPLED WITH THE ABSENCE OF LIMITING JURY INSTRUCTIONS, CONSTITUTED REVERSIBLE ERROR (FIRST DEPT). ​
“Crime-Fraud” Exception to Attorney-Client Privilege Re: Studies Funded by Defendant Casting Doubt on Relationship Between Asbestos and Cancer
THE DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION (RETALIATION) ACTION PURSUANT TO THE NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW PRECLUDED A RELITIGATION OF THE RETALIATION CLAIMS IN STATE COURT PURSUANT TO THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFFS DO NOT CONTEST THE APPEALS AND WILL NOT PURSUE THE LITIGATION, THE APPEALS ARE NOT MOOT BECAUSE THE ORDER MAY AFFECT RELATED ACTIONS AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS; THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, BROUGHT BEFORE DEFENDANTS ANSWERED THE COMPLAINT, WAS PREMATURE (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...