You are here: / / CONFLICTING TESTIMONY ABOUT WHETHER A CO-WORKER WAS HOLDING THE LADDER...

CONFLICTING TESTIMONY ABOUT WHETHER A CO-WORKER WAS HOLDING THE LADDER PLAINTIFF WAS USING PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined conflicting testimony concerning whether the ladder plaintiff was using was being held by a co-worker raised a question of fact in this Labor Law 240 (1) action:

… [T]he plaintiff submitted, among other things, a transcript of his deposition testimony and a transcript of a workers’ compensation board hearing, which included the testimony of the plaintiff and his coworker. The plaintiff testified at his deposition and at the hearing that the ladder shifted, causing him to lose his footing, and that nobody was holding the ladder at the time of the accident. His coworker gave a different account. The coworker testified that he was standing at the bottom of the ladder, holding it, when he felt the ladder jolt. Whether the ladder was being stabilized at the time of the accident presents a triable issue of fact … . Accordingly, “the plaintiff’s own submissions demonstrated that there are triable issues of fact as to how this accident occurred and it cannot be concluded, as a matter of law, that the alleged failure to provide the plaintiff with proper protection proximately caused his injuries” … . Lozada v St. Patrick’s R C Church, 2019 NY Slip Op 05971, Second Dept 7-31-19

 

You might also like
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIR’S DETERMINATION WAS AFFECTED BY AN ERROR OF LAW WHICH RESULTED IN A MISINTERPRETATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, DETERMINATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANNULLED.
ONE INCH GAP AT THE TOP OF EXTERIOR STEPS ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE UNDER THE STORM IN PROGRESS DOCTRINE.
AT TRIAL IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PLAINTFF FAILED TO PROVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE AND FAILED TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DECIDED BY DEFAULT CANNOT SUPPORT THE APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE ISSUES HAVE NOT BEEN LITIGATED (SECOND DEPT).
Corporation Dissolved for Failure to Pay Franchise Taxes Can Be Sued On Its Pre-Dissolution Obligations
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; I.E., THE NOTICE MUST BE MAILED IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE WITH NO OTHER MATERIALS, AND THE NOTICE MUST BE SENT SEPARATELY TO EACH BORROWER (SECOND DEPT).
Vehicle On a Flatbed Tow Truck Is Not In “Use or Operation” Within Meaning of Vehicle and Traffic Law 388

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

EVIDENCE WAS SEIZED DURING A WARRANTLESS PAROLE SEARCH AT A TIME WHEN DEFENDANT’S... DEFENDANT DOG OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGMENT SHE HAD HEARD THAT ONE OF HER DOGS...