You are here: / / ​ PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY FELL INTO A DITCH WHICH WAS COVERED BY A TARP; T...

​ PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY FELL INTO A DITCH WHICH WAS COVERED BY A TARP; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS THE ONLY WITNESS AND THE ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF COULD HAVE TAKEN A DIFFERENT ROUTE DID NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) action. Plaintiff alleged he fell into a ditch which was covered by a tarp. That there were no witnesses to the incident did not require denial of summary judgment. The allegation plaintiff could have taken a different route raised an issue of comparative negligence which is not a bar to summary judgment on a Labor Law 240(1) cause of action:

Defendants … failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident. Defendants contend that plaintiff chose to use a bathroom further away from his workstation and attempted to cross over the ditch without first inspecting the covering that had replaced the plank before stepping on it. However, these circumstances still demonstrate that plaintiff’s accident was the result of the absence of a safety device, and raise only an issue as to plaintiff’s comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim … .

The fact that plaintiff was the only witness to his accident does not preclude summary judgment in his favor, as nothing in the record controverted his account of the accident or called into question his credibility … . Sotelo v TRM Contr., LP, 2023 NY Slip Op 00190, First Dept 1-17-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff fell into a ditch covered by a tarp. He was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action despite the fact he was the only witness to the incident and despite the allegation he could have taken a different route (comparative negligence in not a bar to summary judgment on a Labor Law 240(1) cause of action).

 

You might also like
THE OWNER OF THE OLD BRONX COURTHOUSE HAS A VALID CAUSE OF ACTION SEEKING AN EASEMENT BY NECESSITY OVER THE SIDEWALK/STREET ABUTTING THE COURTHOUSE, DESPITE THE “DEMAPPING” OF THE ABUTTING STREET AND THE CONVEYANCE OF THE “DEMAPPED” STREET TO THE DEFENDANT; THE ACTION IS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BECAUSE IT SEEKS TO QUIET TITLE TO THE OWNER’S LAND (FIRST DEPT).
ALLEGATIONS THAT PLAINTIFF WAS FIRED BECAUSE OF EMPLOYER’S WIFE’S UNFOUNDED JEALOUSY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR GENDER DISCRIMINATION (FIRST DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE FATHER NEGLECTED THE DAUGHTER (EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT) WAS SUFFICIENT; BUT THE EVIDENCE FATHER DERIVATIVELY NEGLECTED THE SON WAS NOT (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S ONLY CONNECTION TO THE CORPORATION WHICH HAD CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK WAS HIS SALARY; THEREFORE THE CORPORATION’S NEW YORK CONTACTS COULD NOT BE IMPUTED TO DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).
THE SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE AFFECTED ONLY THE COUNTERCLAIMS, STRIKING THE ENTIRE ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH A JURY TRIAL WAIVER IN A CONTRACT IS NOT ENFORCED WHERE A COUNTERCLAIM ASSERTS FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, HERE THE FRAUDULENT-INDUCEMENT COUNTERCLAIM SOUGHT RESCISSION OF THE CONTRACT, EQUITABLE RELIEF WHICH MUST BE TRIED BY THE COURT; THE MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ JURY-TRIAL DEMAND SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Trial Court Abused Its Discretion When It Disqualified Defense Counsel Over Defendant’s Objection on Conflict of Interest Grounds—The Fact that a Co-Defendant Had Been Represented by Another Attorney from the New York County Defender Services (NYCDS) Did Not Create a Conflict for Defendant’s NYCDS Attorney—Defendant’s Attorney Did Not Have Access to Any Information Provided by the Co-Defendant (Who Had Already Pled Out)—Client Confidences Are Not Generally Shared by Attorneys Within a Large Institution Like the NYCDS, As They Might Be Within a Private Law Firm
PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION AGAINST THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST 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

FATHER MADE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THE NYC ADMINISTRATION OF CHILDREN’S... PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ALLEGED DEFENDANT ATTORNEY NEGLIGENTLY...