You are here: / / PLAINTIFF, WHO IS DEFENDANT’S SON, FELL FROM A LADDER WHEN ATTEMPTING...
,

PLAINTIFF, WHO IS DEFENDANT’S SON, FELL FROM A LADDER WHEN ATTEMPTING TO INSPECT A DAMAGED CHIMNEY ON DEFENDANT’S RENTAL PROPERTY, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR A VOLUNTEER, WHETHER THE INSPECTION WAS COVERED BY THE LABOR LAW, AND WHETHER DEFENDANT SUPERVISED PLAINTIFF’S WORK PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6), 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that questions of fact about (1) whether plaintiff was an employee or a volunteer, (2) whether the inspection work came within the scope of Labor Law coverage, and (3) whether defendant supervised plaintiff’s work giving rise to Labor Law 200 or common-law negligence liability. Plaintiff is defendant’s son and lives with defendant. Defendant owns rental property next door. Defendant set up a ladder for plaintiff at the rental property and asked him to inspect the chimney because pieces of it had fallen to the ground. Plaintiff and the ladder fell when he attempted to inspect the chimney. Plaintiff brought Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6), 200 and common-law negligence causes of action:

… [D]efendant’s testimony … established that she directed plaintiff on what to do when he inspected the chimney, had previously paid him for repairs and would have paid him if he had carried out the chimney cap repairs. We agree with Supreme Court that this testimony presents a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was a volunteer or an employee within the meaning of the Labor Law and the Industrial Code … . …

As plaintiff and defendant both anticipated that plaintiff would carry out the repair if his inspection revealed that this would be feasible, this record does not permit a determination as a matter of law that the chimney inspection was “a separate phase easily distinguishable from” the actual repair, and thus outside the statutory protection … .

Although defendant asserts that she did not supervise plaintiff’s work and did not tell him how to use the ladder, her own testimony establishes that the ladder belonged to her and that she put it in place — allegedly on uneven ground — without plaintiff’s participation, directed him to use the ladder, and told him what to do in inspecting the chimney. Thus, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant exercised supervisory control over the manner and methods by which plaintiff performed the task of inspecting the chimney … . Doskotch v Pisocki, 2019 NY Slip Op 00017, Third Dept 1-3-19

 

You might also like
Family Court Properly Issued an Order of Protection Against the 13-Year-Old Respondent In Favor of Petitioner’s 13-Year-Old Daughter Pursuant to Family Court Act 812—Respondent and Daughter Had Been Boyfriend-Girlfriend and Had Been Intimate But They Were Not Members of the Same Family or Household and Never Lived Together—Respondent Fit Within the Expanded Definition of “Member of the Same Family or Household” As the Phrase Is Used In Family Court Act 812, Thereby Providing Family Court with Jurisdiction Over the Proceedings
HEARING OFFICER’S DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR A WITNESS AND FAILURE TO INQUIRE INTO INMATE WINTESSES’ REFUSAL TO TESTIFY REQUIRED A NEW HEARING.
PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE NUISANCE EXPLAINED; BECAUSE DEFENDANTS SOLD THEIR PROPERTY, THE APPEAL RELATED TO THE INJUNCTION CAUSE OF ACTION WAS MOOT (THIRD DEPT).
THE COMMISSIONER OF TEMPORARY AND DISABILITY ASSISTANCE CAN RECOUP MONEY PAID TO A SSI-BENEFIT-APPLICANT UNDER A WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM (WEP) DURING THE PERIOD THE APPLICANT IS AWAITING SSI-BENEFIT APPROVAL (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A FLOOR MAT NINE-SIXTEENTHS OF AN INCH THICK CREATED A TRIPPING HAZARD IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (THIRD DEPT).
Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine Raised Question of Fact About Whether Anesthesiologist, Who Was Alone With the Unconscious Decedent at the Time of Death, Was Negligent
CLAIMANT ACCEPTED $10,000 AND AGREED TO RESIGN IN GRIEVANCE PROCEEDINGS, VOLUNTARY SEPARATION PRECLUDED UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS.
LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE TENANT ABANDONED THE LEASED PREMISES AND WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RENT FOR THE PERIODS BEFORE AND AFTER TENANT WAS LOCKED OUT; TENANT WAS ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE VALUE OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY WHICH REMAINED IN THE LEASED PREMISES AFTER THE LOCKOUT (THIRD 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF BANK WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO RECOMMENCE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AFTER... ALTHOUGH PETITIONER SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE STEPPING OFF A BUS SHE WAS CLEANING,...