You are here: / / FALLING SHEETROCK DID NOT SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

FALLING SHEETROCK DID NOT SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION.

The Second Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action, alleging injury from a falling piece of sheetrock, was properly granted. The sheetrock in question was stored against a wall and was not being hoisted at the time of the incident. [The extensive decision demonstrates the complexity of Labor Law actions as it addresses Labor Law 241(6) and Labor Law 200 causes of action, indemnification issues and the liability of agents and general contractors.] With respect to the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action, the court wrote:

“In order to prevail on summary judgment in a section 240(1) falling object’ case, the injured worker must demonstrate the existence of a hazard contemplated under that statute and the failure to use, or the inadequacy of, a safety device of the kind enumerated therein'” … . “Essentially, the plaintiff must demonstrate that at the time the object fell, it either was being hoisted or secured, or required securing for the purposes of the undertaking” … . “[F]or section 240 (1) to apply, a plaintiff must show more than simply that an object fell causing injury to a worker. A plaintiff must show that the object fell . . . because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute” … .

However, Labor Law § 240(1) “does not apply in situations in which a hoisting or securing device of the type enumerated in the statute would not be necessary or expected” … . Here, the sheetrock, which was being stored against a wall, was not a material being hoisted or a load that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking at the time it fell … , nor was it expected, under the circumstances of this case, that the sheetrock would require securing for the purposes of the undertaking at the time it fell … . Seales v Trident Structural Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 06204, 2nd Dept 9-28-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FALLING SHEETROCK DID NOT SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION)/FALLING OBJECTIONS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, FALLING SHEETROCK DID NOT SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION)

You might also like
Criteria for Expanded Jury Instruction on the Voluntariness of a Statement Explained (Criteria Not Met Here)—Trial Judge Should Not Have Participated in Readback of Testimony (Not Reversible Error Here)
With the Exception of Residence Addresses Included in the Requested Documents, Respondent Fire Department Did Not Meet Its Burden of Demonstrating the Applicability of a Statutory Exemption to Disclosure
NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
INSURED’S REFUSAL TO COOPERATE WITH INSURER RELIEVED INSURER OF LIABILITY FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURED.
PROOF OF MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE TO THE CORRECT ADDRESS WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE INITIAL MOTION PAPERS AND THEREFORE WAS NOT PART OF PLAINTIFF’S ATTEMPT TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE; IN ADDTIION, THE PROOF OF MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS DEFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE VACATION OF THE SENTENCE FOR THE MURDER OF HIS FATHER’S GIRLFRIEND UNDER THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED A SUCCESSIVE AND LATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED; DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED PLAINTIFF WAS NOT A THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
33 HOUR DELAY IN ARRAIGNMENT, UNDER THE FACTS, DID NOT RENDER STATEMENT INVOLUNTARILY MADE.

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

APPELLANT WAS NOT APPRISED OF AND DID NOT WAIVE HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL; ORDERS... PROPERTY OWNER’S [EMPLOYER’S] COMMON LAW DUTY TO PROVIDE SAFE PLACE...