You are here: / / INJURY FROM A FALLING BLOCK AND CHAIN USED TO REPLACE A ROLL UP DOOR WAS...

INJURY FROM A FALLING BLOCK AND CHAIN USED TO REPLACE A ROLL UP DOOR WAS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) BUT NOT UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action, but defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action. “The plaintiff allege[d] that he was injured … when a differential block and chain fell onto his head as he and his coworkers were preparing a hoisting apparatus to remove and replace a broken roll-up gate on the defendants’ premises:”

” [T]he statutory requirement that workers be provided with proper protection extends not only to the hazards of building materials falling,’ but to the hazards of defective parts of safety devices falling from an elevated level to the ground'” … . Here, the defendants are liable whether the plaintiff’s coworker accidently dropped the differential while preparing to use the hoisting apparatus to remove the old roll-up gate, or the differential fell because it was inadequately secured … . …

However, unlike Labor Law § 240, which includes repair work, Labor Law § 241(6) is limited to those areas in which construction, excavation, or demolition work is being performed (compare Labor Law § 240[1], with Labor Law § 241[6]). In this case, Labor Law § 241(6) is inapplicable because the plaintiff was not performing work in the context of construction, demolition, or excavation … . Barrios v 19-19 24th Ave. Co., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 01046, Second Dept 2-13-19

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF CONTRACTOR DID NOT ALLEGE IT WAS LICENSED TO DO HOME IMPROVEMENT WORK IN ITS COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND SEEKING TO FORECLOSE ON A MECHANIC’S LIEN, THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE 2019 MOTION TO RESTORE THE ACTION TO ACTIVE STATUS AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE WAS VACATED IN 2012 SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; LACHES DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THERE HAS BEEN NO SERVICE OF A 90-DAY DEMAND PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF ELEVATED WHEEL STOP IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
​PLAINTIFF’S FIRST EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; PLAINTIFF’S SECOND COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE SAME STATUTE; THE SECOND COMPLAINT WAS NOT BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A NEW TRIAL IS NECESSARY BECAUSE AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT MAKE NEW FINDINGS OF FACT IN A JURY TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS COMPLICATED FORECLOSURE DECISION, THE 2ND DEPARTMENT EXPLAINED (1) WHEN EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN REPLY CAN BE CONSIDERED AND (2) THE CRITERIA FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE EMERGENCY HAD DIMINISHED AND THE POLICE OFFICER HAD TURNED OFF HIS SIREN AND LIGHTS WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED, THE OFFICER WAS STILL ENGAGED IN AN EMERGENCY OPERATION AND DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE 90-DAY DEMAND REQUIRED BY CPLR 3216 WAS NOT PROVIDED BY THE COURT’S ORDER; THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESTORED TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR WITHOUT A SHOWING OF MERIT; THE ISSUE, FIRST RAISED ON APPEAL, WAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE APPELLATE COURT (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE INSIDE THE BUILDING SHE WAS WORKING IN, THE... FAILURE TO IDENTIFY AN APPEALABLE ISSUE IN AN ANDERS BRIEF ARGUING THAT THERE...