You are here: / / PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF...
, ,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER, EVIDENCE THAT BEAMS HAD BEEN CUT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) action against his employer (a demolition company) was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. Plaintiff fell when the roof of the building collapsed. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against the owner of the building was properly denied because there was a question of fact whether the collapse of the roof was foreseeable:

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 defendants are liable for all normal and foreseeable consequences of their acts'” … . In support of his motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the partial collapse of the roof and, in turn, the need for safety devices to protect the plaintiff from that hazard, were foreseeable … . The plaintiff’s deposition testimony that he was told that the roof collapsed because the beams from the third-floor ceiling had been cut constituted inadmissible hearsay … . Paguay v Cup of Tea, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06926, Second Dept 10-17-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER (SECOND DEPT))/WORKERS’ COMPENSATION  (PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER (SECOND DEPT))/EVIDENCE (HEARSAY, PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER, EVIDENCE THAT BEAMS HAD BEEN CUT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT))/HEARSAY (PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER, EVIDENCE THAT BEAMS HAD BEEN CUT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
ACTIONS AGAINST THE COUNTY STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS WHILE WORKING ON COUNTY PROPERTY WERE TIME BARRED, INCLUDING AN ACTION ALLEGING FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF THE PRESENCE OF ASBESTOS (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT AND HIS SON WERE REPRESENTED BY THE SAME ATTORNEY; DEFENDANT ALLEGEDLY PLED GUILTY TO ATTEMPTED ASSAULT BECAUSE HE WAS TOLD HIS SON WOULD DO JAIL TIME IF DEFENDANT DID NOT ENTER THE PLEA; BECAUSE OF THE ATTORNEY’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED IN DOG-BITE CASE.
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED.
PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE POLICE HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST HIM AND WHETHER THE POLICE GAVE FALSE EVIDENCE TO THE GRAND JURY; THE MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, FALSE ARREST, FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CLIMATOLOGICAL RECORDS WERE NOT CERTIFIED AS BUSINESS RECORDS AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON TO SHOW A STORM IN PROGRESS AT THE TIME OF THE SLIP AND FALL; PROOF OF A GENERAL INSPECTION ROUTINE COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON TO SHOW THE ABSENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE BLACK ICE (SECOND DEPT).
A CROSS-MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (C) IS NOT AN APPEARANCE AND DOES NOT WAIVE THE LACK-OF-JURISDICTION DEFENSE; INFANT DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT SERVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CPLR 309; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (SECOND DEPT)
DETECTIVE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY AS AN EXPERT ABOUT THE ROLES PLAYED BY THE PEOPLE OVERHEARD IN RECORDED PHONE CALLS IN THIS DRUG CONSPIRACY CASE, ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER.

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

ADJUDICATED JUVENILE DELINQUENT NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE... FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE CERTIFIED MINUTES OF THE CONVENTION REQUIRED REMOVAL...