You are here: / / WHETHER PLAINTIFF FELL FROM THE SIXTH STEP OF AN UNSECURED A-FRAME LADDER...
,

WHETHER PLAINTIFF FELL FROM THE SIXTH STEP OF AN UNSECURED A-FRAME LADDER OR THE SECOND STEP WAS IRRELEVANT; BOTH ARE COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor law 240(1) cause of action in this ladder-fall case. Whether plaintiff fell from the sixth step of the A-frame ladder or the second step was irrelevant:

Plaintiff “established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim by submitting proof, including an expert affidavit, that he fell from an unsecured [eight]-foot A-frame ladder that suddenly moved” as he was removing plywood sheets from the ceiling above him … . Plaintiff’s testimony that he fell from the ladder after it was struck by a falling piece of plywood is uncontroverted. It is irrelevant whether plaintiff was on the sixth step of the ladder when the plywood fell, as he testified, or on the second step of the ladder, as his coworker averred, because a fall from a height of two feet can constitute the type of elevation-related risk that is covered by the protections of Labor Law § 240(1) … .

Defendants’ argument that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident is unavailing. Even if plaintiff was negligent, it is “conceptually impossible” for a plaintiff’s negligence to be the sole proximate cause where it is shown that defendants’ violation of Labor Law § 240(1) was also a proximate cause of the accident … . In any event, plaintiff was not solely liable for the accident, because he followed his employer’s instruction in performing the work … . De Souza v 4720 Third Ave LLC, 2026 NY Slip Op 05905, First Dept 10-13-26

Practice Point: A fall from the second step of an unsecured A-frame ladder is covered under Labor Law 240(1) (two feet in height).

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION DEMONSTRATED A JUSTIFIABLE EXCUSE FOR NOT TIMELY FILING A NOTE OF ISSUE AFTER A NINETY-DAY DEMAND, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A MERITORIOUS CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT WHICH RELIED ON HEARSAY PROVIDED BY TWO SOURCES, BUT DID NOT SUBMIT AFFIDAVITS FROM THOSE SOURCES (FIRST DEPT).
PRIOR CONVICTION OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON DID NOT DISQUALIFY DEFENDANT FROM ELIGIBILITY FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS; IT IS NOT AN ‘ARMED FELONY’ (FIRST DEPT).
Court Has Inherent Authority to Reinstate Indictment After Dismissal for Legal Insufficiency
IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, WHETHER DEFENDANT REGISTERED NURSE AND DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT GAVE PLAINTIFF THE APPROPRIATE DISCHARGE INSTRUCTIONS AFTER DISOVERING A LUMP IN PLAINTIFF’S BREAST CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DOCTOR WHO COSIGNED THE PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT’S CHART SHOULD HAVE REVIEWED THE CHART (FIRST DEPT).
THE STIPULATION OF DIVORCE DIVESTED THE HUSBAND OF HIS RIGHTS IN THE MARITAL PROPERTY; THEREFORE THE HUSBAND’S JUDGMENT CREDITOR COULD NOT REACH THE PROPERTY EVEN THOUGH THE HUSBAND’S NAME REMAINED ON THE DEED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF, WHO SUED UNDER THE NAME MARGARET DOE, TO AMEND THE CAPTION TO INCLUDE HER LEGAL NAME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF PRESENTED EVIDENCE SUING UNDER HER OWN NAME WOULD HAVE SEVERE MENTAL-HEALTH CONSEQUENCES (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS IN THE ELEVATOR SHAFT WHEN THE ELEVATOR, OPERATING NORMALLY, DESCENDED AND CRUSHED HIM; THE ELEVATOR WAS NOT A “FALLING OBJECT” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1); COMPLAINT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO INFORM THE DEFENSE ABOUT A SECOND EYEWITNESS TO THE SHOOTING WAS A REVERSIBLE BRADY VIOLATION, THE MOTION TO VACATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (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

A FEDERAL COURT APPOINTED PLAINTIFF-RECEIVER TO TAKE OVER A BUSINESS RUNNING... DEFENDANTS REPUDIATED THE HOME-RENOVATION CONTRACT WHEN THEY SUBMITTED A PROPOSED...