You are here: / / AN OPEN MANHOLE IS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD COVERED BY LABOR LAW...

AN OPEN MANHOLE IS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, affirming Supreme Court, determined falling down an open manhole is not an elevation-related hazard covered by Labor Law 240(1):

Labor Law § 240(1) “imposes upon owners and general contractors, and their agents a nondelegable duty to provide workers proper protection from elevation-related hazards” … . The statute “was designed to prevent those types of accidents in which the scaffold, hoist, stay, ladder or other protective device proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person” … . “Not every gravity-related injury is within the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1)” … . “‘Whether a plaintiff is entitled to recovery under Labor Law § 240(1) requires a determination of whether the injury sustained is the type of elevation-related hazard to which the statute applies'” … .

… [T]he plaintiff’s injuries, though the result of a fall, did not result from an elevation-relation hazard encompassed by Labor Law § 240(1) … . Bonkoski v Condos Bros. Constr. Corp., 2023 NY Slip Op 02296, Second Dept 5-3-23

Practice Point: An open manhole is not an elevated-related hazard covered by Labor Law 240(1).

 

You might also like
Language of Exclusion from Coverage, Including the Phrase “Arising Out Of” Was Not Ambiguous—Insurer Was Not Obligated to Defend or Indemnify Defendants
THE GYM TEACHER TOLD THE STUDENTS TO RUN AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE BUILDING; STUDENT PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL OVER A CHAIN WHICH, SHE ALLEGED, OTHER STUDENTS WERE JUMPING OVER AS THEY RAN; THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PASSIVE OMISSIONS, FAILURE TO SALT ICY AREA DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE LAUNCHING OF AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM.
THE REPORT OF THE INCIDENT IN WHICH PETITIONER WAS INJURED DID NOT PROVIDE THE CITY DEFENDANTS WITH NOTICE OF A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE INJURIES AND ANY NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANTS; THEREFORE THE CITY DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CLAIM WITHIN 90 DAYS; IN ADDITION, IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT A VALID EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND SERVE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
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).
A JUDGE CANNOT DELEGATE PARENTAL ACCESS DETERMINATIONS TO A MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 OR THE MORTGAGE AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT MAKE SUFFICIENT EFFORTS TO PERSONALLY DELIVER THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT BEFORE RESORTING TO NAIL AND MAIL SERVICE; COMPLAINT DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT (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 BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING... CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE COMPLAINT BASED UPON ALLEGATIONS NOT INCLUDED IN THE...