You are here: / / Collapse of Rotten Floor First Revealed When Carpet Was Removed Was Not...

Collapse of Rotten Floor First Revealed When Carpet Was Removed Was Not Foreseeable—Labor Law 240(1) Cause of Action Properly Dismissed—Defect Was Latent and Was Not Caused by Owner—Labor Law 200 and Common-Law Negligence Causes of Action Properly Dismissed

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s fall through a rotted portion of subfloor exposed when carpeting was removed was not foreseeable.  Therefore the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action, the Labor Law 200 cause of action, and the common-law negligence cause of action against the owner of the property were properly dismissed:

In order for liability to be imposed under Labor Law § 240(1), there must be “a foreseeable risk of injury from an elevation-related hazard . . . as [d]efendants are liable for all normal and foreseeable consequences of their acts'” … . Thus, the collapse or partial collapse of a permanent floor may give rise to liability under Labor Law § 240(1) where ” circumstances are such that there is a foreseeable need for safety devices'” … . Here, however, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the partial collapse of a small section the basement subfloor and, in turn, the need for safety devices to protect the injured plaintiff from an elevation-related hazard, were foreseeable. Consequently, since the plaintiffs did not meet their prima facie burden of demonstrating their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) .. . * * *

Where, as here, a plaintiff’s alleged injury arose not from the manner in which the work was performed, but from an allegedly dangerous condition on the premises, a property owner moving for summary judgment dismissing causes of action alleging common-law negligence and a violation of Labor Law § 200 has the initial burden of showing only that it neither created the dangerous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of it … . A defendant has constructive notice of a defect when it is visible and apparent, and has existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident such that it could have been discovered and corrected … . “When a defect is latent and would not be discoverable upon a reasonable inspection, constructive notice may not be imputed” … . Here, the defendant demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the defect in the subfloor, which was latent and not discoverable upon a reasonable inspection. The defendant further demonstrated that it did not create the defect. Carrillo v Circle Manor Apts., 2015 NY Slip Op 06652, 2nd Dept 8-26-15

 

You might also like
ANTISUBROGATION RULE BARRED PLAINTIFF INSURER’S CAUSES OF ACTION, THE UNDERLYING ACTION ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW VIOLATIONS STEMMING FROM A CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).
People’s Failure to Provide Timely Notice of the Intent to Present Witnesses to Rebut the Testimony of Defendant’s Alibi Witness Required Reversal
THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Did Not Demonstrate the Absence of Constructive Notice of the Condition Alleged to Have Caused Plaintiff to Fall–Defendant Therefore Not Entitled to Summary Judgment
THE FLORIDA DEFENDANTS ADVERTISED THROUGH A NATIONWIDE WEBSITE; THE NEW YORK PLAINTIFFS SOLICITED THE CONTRACT WITH DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFFS DID NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF EITHER GENERAL OR SPECIFIC (LONG-ARM) JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANTS (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TAKE A TIMELY DEFAULT JUDGMENT; THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT).
REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1501 WAS THE PROPER BASIS FOR THE ACTION SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE DEED AND MORTGAGES WHICH WERE THE BASES FOR THE BANK’S JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE.
RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF INDOOR ROCK CLIMBER INVALID PURSUANT TO GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW, COMPLAINT ALLEGED INJURY CAUSED BY CONCEALED DEFECT WHICH WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (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

Negligent Supervision Cause of Action Against School Should Have Been Dismi... Fees Owed by Seller to “Financial Advisor” Hired by Seller to Facilitate...