You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A BEAM WHICH WAS BEING HOISTED STARTED SWINGING...

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN A BEAM WHICH WAS BEING HOISTED STARTED SWINGING WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS HOLDING ON TO IT; THE BEAM STRUCK A PILE OF BEAMS ON THE GROUND AND PLAINTIFF WAS “JERKED … FORWARD;” BECAUSE THE BEAM SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED AND THE INJURY WAS RELATED TO THE FORCE OF GRAVITY PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was injured when a beam was being hoisted started swinging with plaintiff’s arm around it, and struck a pile beams, causing plaintiff to be “jerked … forward.”

“Labor Law § 240(1) imposes upon owners, contractors, and their agents a nondelegable duty to provide workers proper protection from elevation-related hazards” … . “Liability is contingent upon ‘the existence of a hazard contemplated in section 240(1) and the failure to use, or the inadequacy of, a safety device of the kind enumerated therein'” … . In cases involving falling objects, the applicability of the statute does not “depend upon whether the object has hit the worker” but rather “whether the harm flows directly from the application of the force of gravity to the object” … . “In falling object cases, the plaintiff must demonstrate that at the time the object fell, it either was being hoisted or secured, or required securing for the purposes of the undertaking” … .

Here, the plaintiff established, prima facie, [defendants’] liability under Labor Law § 240(1) by submitting, among other things, transcripts of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and the crane operator’s deposition testimony, which established that the beam being hoisted at the time of the incident was an object that required securing for purposes of the undertaking, and the harm flowed “directly from the application of the force of gravity to the” beam … . Sougstad v OLP Hauppauge, LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 05050, Second Dept 8-19-26

Practice Point: Here a beam which started swinging when it was hoisted was deemed a “falling object.” Although the “falling object” did not strike plaintiff, his injury was the result of the force of gravity upon the beam which should have been secured. He was therefore entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.

 

You might also like
THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION WHEN DEFENDANT’S CAR WAS BLOCKED BY A POLICE CAR; THE APPELLATE COURT MAY CONSIDER A RULING WHICH WAS NOT EXPLICIT BASED ON THE CONTEXT OF THE RULING WITHIN THE RECORD (SECOND DEPT).
Mother’s Petition to Relocate Should Not Have Been Denied—Analytical Criteria Described
Court’s Sua Sponte Dismissal of Complaint Reversed
DEFENDANT FIRED INTO THE CAR AHEAD DURING A HIGH SPEED CHASE, DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED, TESTIMONY FROM THE FIRST TRIAL BY A WITNESS WHO HAD SINCE BEEN DEPORTED PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES PROPERLY HELD IN CIVIL CONTEMPT FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH AN ORDER TO PLACE THE CHILD IN TRADITIONAL FOSTER CARE (SECOND DEPT).
THE NYPD IS A DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY AND CANNOT BE SEPARATELY SUED; THE 42 USC 1983 CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT ALLEGATIONS OF AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL CITY CUSTOM OR POLICY; THE OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE CITY FALL BECAUSE THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR PLAINTIFF’S ARREST AND THE FORCE USED BY THE POLICE WAS NOT EXCESSIVE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO VACATE DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION FOR A 1991 MURDER PROPERLY GRANTED BASED IN PART ON SUBSEQUENT SERIOUS MISCONDUCT BY ONE OF THE POLICE INVESTIGATORS, CRITERIA FOR NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
​REMOVING SCAFFOLDS, LADDERS, ETC. FROM THE WORKSITE WAS “ANCILLARY” TO THE RENOVATION WORK AND THEREFORE PROTECTED BY LABOR LAW 240(1); THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S FALLING OFF THE TOP OF THE VAN WHERE HE WAS LOADING THE EQUIPMENT WAS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND 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

HERE THE COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE COUNSEL REFUSED TO PROCEED WITH THE... PROPERTY OWNED BY A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND A TRUST IS NOT ENTITLED TO...