Comments on: SUPREME COURT HAD RULED THAT, AT THE TIME HE WAS STRUCK BY A FALLING OBJECT, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN A TASK COVERED BY THE LABOR LAW; PLAINTIFF’S TASK AT THE EXACT MOMENT OF THE ACCIDENT IS NOT DISPOSITIVE; THE LABOR LAW COVERS ALL TASKS NECESSARY AND INCIDENTAL TO THE RELEVANT WORK, HERE THE REMOVAL OF DEBRIS FROM THE WORKSITE (FIRST DEPT).

Comments on: SUPREME COURT HAD RULED THAT, AT THE TIME HE WAS STRUCK BY A FALLING OBJECT, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN A TASK COVERED BY THE LABOR LAW; PLAINTIFF’S TASK AT THE EXACT MOMENT OF THE ACCIDENT IS NOT DISPOSITIVE; THE LABOR LAW COVERS ALL TASKS NECESSARY AND INCIDENTAL TO THE RELEVANT WORK, HERE THE REMOVAL OF DEBRIS FROM THE WORKSITE (FIRST DEPT). https://www.newyorkappellatedigest.com/2026/06/02/supreme-court-had-ruled-that-at-the-time-he-was-struck-by-a-falling-object-plaintiff-was-not-engaged-in-a-task-covered-by-the-labor-law-plaintiffs-task-at-the-exact-moment-of-the-accident-is-not/ Sat, 06 Jun 2026 16:44:55 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0