You are here: / / A TWO-FOOT DEEP TRENCH WAS NOT AN ELEVATION HAZARD OR A HAZARDOUS OPEN...

A TWO-FOOT DEEP TRENCH WAS NOT AN ELEVATION HAZARD OR A HAZARDOUS OPENING.

The Second Department determined defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action. Plaintiff alleged he was pulled into a two-foot deep trench while holding a cable. The court held the hazard was not “elevation-related” and the two-foot deep trench was not a “hazardous opening:”

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the plaintiff’s alleged injuries were not caused by the elevation or gravity-related hazards encompassed by Labor Law § 240(1) … . …

… [T]he defendants made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) by demonstrating, inter alia, that 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1), which is the only Industrial Code provision upon which the plaintiff presently relies, is inapplicable to the facts of this case. That provision provides, in pertinent part, that “[e]very hazardous opening into which a person may step or fall shall be guarded by a substantial cover fastened in place or by a safety railing” (12 NYCRR 23-1.7[b][1][i]). Although this provision is sufficiently specific to support a cause of action under Labor Law § 241(6) … , the trench in this particular case, which was only two feet deep, is not a hazardous opening within the meaning of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1) … . Palumbo v Transit Tech., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 07305, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (A TWO-FOOT DEEP TRENCH WAS NOT AN ELEVATION HAZARD OR A HAZARDOUS OPENING)

You might also like
Application to File Late Notice of Claim Against School District Properly Granted in Absence of Reasonable Excuse—School District Had Timely Actual Notice and Could Not Demonstrate Prejudice
THE UCC CRITERIA FOR PROOF OF POSSESSION OF A LOST NOTE WERE NOT MET; PLAINTIFF BANK THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Court’s Sua Sponte Dismissal of Complaint Reversed
ARTICLE 78 PETITION WAS NOT SERVED UPON A PERSON AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE SERVICE ON BEHALF OF THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP); ALTHOUGH THE PROCESS SERVER ALLEGED THE PETITION WAS DELIVERED TO AN ATTORNEY AT THE DEP WHO SAID SHE WAS AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE SERVICE, THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).
Denial of an Area Variance for a Parking Lot, Based Solely on the Subjective/Aesthetic Objections of Residents, Was Arbitrary and Capricious—Statutory Factors Not Applied to the Decision-Making Process
PROOF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 WERE MET (SECOND DEPT).
GOOD CAUSE FOR A FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION WAS DEMONSTRATED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
THE JUDGE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE FAILED TO ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN TO THE JURY THE DIFFERENT DUTIES OWED BY THE TENANT AND THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING ABUTTING THE SIDEWALK; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; IN ADDITION, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HELD DAMAGE AWARDS FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURED ANKLE WERE EXCESSIVE (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FALL WHEN DESCENDING A 28-FOOT LADDER ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT,... FAILURE TO RETURN KEYS DID NOT CONSTITUTE A FAILURE TO SURRENDER THE APARTMENT,...