You are here: / / PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED ON DEBRIS AND FELL INTO A TWO-TO-THREE-FOOT-DEEP...
,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED ON DEBRIS AND FELL INTO A TWO-TO-THREE-FOOT-DEEP PIT FROM WHICH THE PLYWOOD COVER HAD BEEN REMOVED TRIGGERING POTENTIAL LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6); ONE DEFENDANT MAY BE LIABLE AS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER WITH SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY; TWO DEFENDANTS MAY BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 FOR THE DANGEROUS CONDITIONS; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversed Supreme Court and reinstated the complaint in this Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200 action. Plaintiff’s decedent allegedly tripped on debris and fell into a two-to-three-foot deep pit from which the plywood cover had been removed:

… [P]laintiff has raised an issue of fact as to whether application of Labor Law § 240 governs this claim sufficient to defeat defendants’ various motions for summary judgment … .

… [P]laintiff raised issues of fact barring dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action, as Industrial Code §§ 23-1.7(e) and 23-1.30 may apply to circumstances of plaintiff’s accident. Plaintiff’s decedent testified that he tripped over debris in a passageway and then into a pit in an area that was arguably a work area … .

As to Baring’s liability under the Labor Law, it failed to establish that it is not a statutory agent for purposes of Labor Law §§ 240(1) or 241(6). Baring’s contract with Plaza delegated the authority to Baring to supervise and control the installation of kitchen equipment and obligated it to exercise such supervision over any of its subcontractors, such as decedent’s employer. That it may not have actually done so is not dispositive … .

With respect to the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action as against NYY Steak and Plaza, there is an issue of fact as to whether those defendants were on notice that the illumination at the site was insufficient … .. Plaintiff also adduced evidence of constructive notice as to the uncovered pit… . Devita v NYY Steak Manhattan, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 01257, First Dept 3-14-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff allegedly tripped on debris and fell into a two-to-three-foot-deep pit from which the plywood cover had been removed. Both Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) were therefore implicated. One defendant may have been liable as a statutory agent of the owner with supervisory authority. Two other defendants may have been liable for the dangerous conditions, including inadequate lighting, pursuant to Labor Law 200.

 

You might also like
THE PROOF OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AT THE FORTHCOMING CUSTODY TRIAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO INCIDENTS OCCURRING AFTER THE HAGUE CONVENTION PROCEEDINGS IN CYPRUS (FIRST DEPT). ​
DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, RELEVANT LAW CLEARLY EXPLAINED.
ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT CLAIM UNDER JUDICIARY LAW 487 APPLIES ONLY TO COURT, NOT ARBITRATION, PROCEEDINGS.
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED AN ACTION TO ENFORCE A MONEY JUDGMENT OBTAINED IN THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (PRC) ON THE IMPLICIT GROUND THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT AFFORDED DUE PROCESS IN THE PRC; THE US STATE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS UPON WHICH SUPREME COURT’S RULING WAS BASED DO NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE; THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED DEFENDANTS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, WERE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL IN THE PRC ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
NO NOTICE OF ALLEGED SKIDDING AND SHAKING OF ESCALATOR, RES IPSA LOQUITUR NOT APPLICABLE.
A PLAINTIFF’S STIPULATED SETTLEMENT WITH THE INSURED ACCOMPANIED BY A COVENANT NOT TO EXECUTE THE JUDGMENT AND AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE INSURED’S CLAIMS AGAINST THE INSURER IS NOT A “RELEASE;” THE INSURER STILL HAS A DUTY TO INDEMNIFY (FIRST DEPT).
NO EVIDENCE ROBBERY VICTIM SAW A FIREARM, ROBBERY FIRST CONVICTION VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
THE VALIDATING PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THE PETITION WAS NOT VERIFIED; THE FAILURE TO RAISE THE OBJECTION WITH DUE DILIGENCE WAIVED IT; ALTHOUGH THE LANGUAGE IN THE PETITION WAS NOT EXACTLY THAT IN CPLR 3021, THE PETITION WAS IN FACT VERIFIED (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

THE EVIDENCE FATHER NEGLECTED THE DAUGHTER (EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT) WAS... ​ THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED AN ORAL JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT BUT DID NOT ALLEGE...