You are here: / / DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF...
, , ,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN ALTER EGO OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL EMPLOYEE, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION THE LADDER MOVED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, NOTWITHSTANDING EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE SAID HE PLACED THE LADDER ON A DROP CLOTH (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined defendant’s affirmative defenses alleging it was an alter ego of plaintiff’s employer and plaintiff was its special employee, thereby insulating defendant from anything other than liability under the Workers’ Compensation Law, should have been dismissed. Summary judgment was properly awarded to plaintiff on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff alleged the ladder he was on moved for no apparent reason. The fact that plaintiff apparently told a co-worker that he set the ladder on a drop cloth merely raised a question of his contributory negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law 240 (1) action:

“Labor Law § 240(1) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners and general contractors to provide safety devices to protect workers from elevation-related risks” … . The sole proximate cause defense applies where the plaintiff, acting as a “recalcitrant worker,” misused an otherwise proper safety device, chose to use an inadequate safety device when proper devices were readily available, or failed to use any device when proper devices were available … . Contributory negligence on the part of the worker is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action … .

Here, the plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to  … judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, by submitting evidence that the ladder on which he was standing moved for no apparent reason, causing him to fall … . In opposition to the plaintiff’s prima facie showing, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s own acts or omissions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the deposition testimony of the plaintiff’s coworker implying that, after the accident, the plaintiff might have told the coworker that the plaintiff had set the ladder up on top of a drop cloth, even if true, would render the plaintiff only contributorily negligent, a defense not available under Labor Law § 240(1) … . Salinas v 64 Jefferson Apts., LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 02370, Second Dept 3-27-19

 

You might also like
IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE, THE ALLEGED FREQUENCY OF THE ABUSE BY A TEACHER RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ABUSE AND WHETHER ITS SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF STUDENT WAS NEGLIGENT (SECOND DEPT).
ALLEGED ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DID NOT WARRANT SETTING ASIDE THE OVER $21 MILLION VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant-Driver’s Admission and Prior Inconsistent Statement, Contained in the Police Accident Report, Should Have Been Admitted in Evidence
MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317 PROPERLY GRANTED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT PERSONALLY SERVED AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE CORRECT ADDRESS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS NOT A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO EVADE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT)
THE LABOR-LAW CONSTRUCTION-ACCIDENT ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY THE RESULT OF THE PRIOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION HEARING UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL; THE MOTION TO AMEND THE ANSWER TO ADD THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DEFENSE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN THOUGH THE MOTION WAS MADE AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE WAS FILED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE SURGICAL CONSENT FORM COMPLIED WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARD OF DISCLOSURE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
A MOTION TO VACATE AN ORDER SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE JUDGE WHO MADE THE ORDER; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
HERE PLAINTIFF BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST A SCHOOL DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT ALLEGING THE SCHOOL DISTRICT NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO PROTECT HER FROM SEXUAL ASSAULT BY A FELLOW STUDENT; THE FACT THAT THE STUDENT COULD NOT BE CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED FOR THE ASSAULT BECAUSE OF HIS AGE DID NOT PRECLUDE REVIVAL OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT; IN OTHER WORDS THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT APPLIES TO REVIVE NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION EVEN IF THE UNDERLYING SEXUAL ASSAULT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED (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

ALTHOUGH THE OPERATION OF THE KNIFE WAS DEMONSTRATED AT TRIAL, THERE WAS NO... PLAINTIFF’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY...