You are here: / / PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1)...

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED OTHER SAFETY DEVICES (LADDERS, SCAFFOLDS) WERE AVAILABLE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS ACTIONS WERE NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly denied. Plaintiff was directed to repair the top rung of a permanent ladder which was missing a bolt. Plaintiff tried to pull himself up by grabbing the top rung which allegedly gave way causing him to fall. Plaintiff testified there were other safety devices (ladders, scaffolding) he could have used and did not demonstrate his actions did not constitute the sole proximate cause of his injuries:

“The single decisive question in determining whether Labor Law § 240(1) is applicable is whether the plaintiff’s injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential” … .

In order to obtain summary judgment on the issue of liability on a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, a plaintiff is required to demonstrate, prima facie, that there was a violation of the statute and that the violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries … . “Merely because a worker is injured while working above ground does not ipso facto mean that the injury resulted from an elevation-related risk contemplated by Section 240(1) of the Labor Law'” … .

Here, the plaintiffs failed to establish, prima facie, that there was a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), or that the injured plaintiff’s actions were not the sole proximate cause of his injuries…  In support of their motion, the plaintiffs submitted the injured plaintiff’s deposition testimony in which he stated that he fell when the top rung of the ship’s ladder, which he knew was missing a bolt and which he had been sent up to the roof to replace, detached while he was in the process of climbing the ladder and after he had attempted to pull himself up by placing his hand on the top rung. The injured plaintiff also testified at his deposition that there were other ladders and pipe scaffolding available to use at the jobsite. Jones v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 07708, Second Dept 11-14-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED OTHER SAFETY DEVICES (LADDERS, SCAFFOLDS) WERE AVAILABLE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS ACTIONS WERE NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES (SECOND DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED OTHER SAFETY DEVICES (LADDERS, SCAFFOLDS) WERE AVAILABLE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS ACTIONS WERE NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES (SECOND DEPT))/SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED OTHER SAFETY DEVICES (LADDERS, SCAFFOLDS) WERE AVAILABLE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS ACTIONS WERE NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL BANKING RULES OR PRACTICES WHEN IT CASHED FORGED CHECKS, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE ACTION PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT),
MOTION TO DISCONTINUE THIS REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT CHALLENGE PROPERLY DENIED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, SUA SPONTE MERGER OF PARCELS, RELIEF NOT REQUESTED BY THE PARTIES, WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE PROPERTY-OWNER-DEFENDANTS UNDERTOOK SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS, THEIR FAILURE TO AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THOSE EFFORTS DID NOT CREATE THE HAZARDOUS CONDITION REQUIRED DENIAL OF THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED, SUA SPONTE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY ANY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE AN EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO MOVE FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT FOR FOUR YEARS; THE ACTION WAS DISMISSED AS ABANDONED WITH NO NEED TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE ACTION WAS MERITORIOUS (SECOND DEPT).
DISCLAIMER IN THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AND SALE CONTRACT PRECLUDED ACTIONS BASED IN FRAUD ALLEGING THE CONCEALMENT OF A RECURRING MOLD-CAUSING CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SEEKING SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT PROPERLY DISMISSED BASED UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT, PLAINTIFF DID NOT APPEAR AT EITHER SCHEDULED CLOSING AFTER SUBMITTING THE HIGHEST BID AND SIGNING THE CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).
IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF ABOUT HIS STATUS AS A DEFENDANT IN A PENDING LAWSUIT WARRANTED GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL (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

DESPITE FATHER’S PRO SE MOTION SEEKING VISITATION, NO PROVISION FOR VISITATION... DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CONCERNING THE POSSIBILITY...