You are here: / / FALL WHEN DESCENDING A 28-FOOT LADDER ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT,...

FALL WHEN DESCENDING A 28-FOOT LADDER ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, APPARENTLY A 40-FOOT LADDER WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFER BUT NONE WAS AVAILABLE, THEREFORE USE OF THE SHORTER LADDER COULD NOT BE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY.

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff fell when he attempted to descend a 28-foot ladder. Apparently a 40-foot ladder would have been safer, but there was no showing a 40-foot ladder was available. Therefore plaintiff’s use of a 28-foot ladder could not be the sole proximate cause of his injury:

… [T]he plaintiff established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability by demonstrating that he was injured when he fell while descending an unsecured, 28-foot ladder, and that he was not provided with a safety device to prevent him from falling … . Contrary to Halsted’s (defendant’s) contention, it failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s decision to use a 28-foot ladder, rather than a 40-foot ladder, was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The record reveals that there were no 40-foot ladders readily available to the plaintiff on the date of his accident, and that a Halsted employee nevertheless instructed the plaintiff that he was required to complete his job, or be fired. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff’s use of the 28-foot ladder cannot be said to be the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . Pacheco v Halsted Communications, Ltd., 2016 NY Slip Op 07303, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FALL WHEN DESCENDING A 28-FOOT LADDER ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, APPARENTLY A 40-FOOT LADDER WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFER BUT NONE WAS AVAILABLE, THEREFORE USE OF THE SHORTER LADDER COULD NOT BE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY)/LADDERS (FALL WHEN DESCENDING A 28-FOOT LADDER ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, APPARENTLY A 40-FOOT LADDER WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFER BUT NONE WAS AVAILABLE, THEREFORE USE OF THE SHORTER LADDER COULD NOT BE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY)/SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE (LABOR LAW, FALL WHEN DESCENDING A 28-FOOT LADDER ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, APPARENTLY A 40-FOOT LADDER WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFER BUT NONE WAS AVAILABLE, THEREFORE USE OF THE SHORTER LADDER COULD NOT BE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY)

You might also like
Proof Submitted in Reply Papers Not Considered
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED ITS AUTHORITY TO SET A SCHEDULE FOR MOTHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS TO THE PARTIES IN THIS CUSTODY ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR INDEMNITY AND CONTRIBUTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DO NOT ACCRUE UNTIL THE UNDERLYING CLAIM IS PAID, WHICH HAS NOT HAPPENED YET; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION HAS NOT YET STARTED TO RUN (SECOND DEPT).
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)
CITY (NYC), NOT ABUTTING LANDOWNERS, RESPONSIBLE FOR MISSING SIDEWALK HYDRANT VALVE COVER PURSUANT TO RULES OF CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
DESIGNATING PETITION PROPERLY INVALIDATED AND THE CANDIDATE’S NAME WAS PROPERLY STRUCK FROM THE PRIMARY BALLOT, THE CANDIDATE’S NAME APPEARED ON DESIGNATING PETITIONS FOR TWO DIFFERENT PUBLIC OFFICES WHICH PRESUMPTIVELY MISLED THE PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE VEHICLE WHICH STRUCK PETITIONER WAS THE VEHICLE INSURED BY GEICO; ARBITRATION OF PETITIONER’S DEMAND FOR UNINSURED MOTORIST BENEFITS FROM ALLSTATE, HER INSURER, SHOULD HAVE BEEN STAYED AND A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Opening Statement Provided Grounds for Dismissal of False Arrest/Malicious Prosecution Action

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

REPAIR OF AN AIR CONDITIONER WAS NOT A PROTECTED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1)... A TWO-FOOT DEEP TRENCH WAS NOT AN ELEVATION HAZARD OR A HAZARDOUS OPENING.