You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS MOVING A HEAVY COMPRESSOR ON A PLANK OVER A TWO-FOOT-DEEP...

PLAINTIFF WAS MOVING A HEAVY COMPRESSOR ON A PLANK OVER A TWO-FOOT-DEEP TRENCH WHEN THE PLANK BROKE; THE INJURY WAS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) AS AN ELEVATION-RELATED INCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s injury was covered by Labor Law 240(1). Plaintiff was moving a heavy compressor on a plank over a trench when the plank broke:

… [T]he injured plaintiff and his coworkers were attempting to transport a compressor, which weighed approximately 300 pounds, from a sidewalk to the street. To reach the street, the compressor had to cross a trench approximately two feet deep, which the workers had covered with a ramp made of plywood. As the workers moved the compressor across the ramp, the ramp broke, causing the compressor to fall into the trench and the handle of the compressor to strike the injured plaintiff’s foot. * * *

… [P]laintiffs submitted evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that the injured plaintiff’s accident was proximately caused by Madison’s [defendant’s] failure to provide appropriate safety devices to protect against gravity-related hazards posed by maneuvering the compressor over the trench … . The plaintiffs also demonstrated that the injured plaintiff’s accident was the result of an elevation differential within the scope of Labor Law § 240(1). Although the compressor only fell a short distance, given the weight of the compressor and the amount of force it was capable of generating, the height differential was not de minimis … . Thus, the injured plaintiff suffered harm that flowed directly from the application of the force of gravity to the compressor … . Gonzalez v Madison Sixty, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 02866, Second Dept 5-31-23

Practice Point: Here a plank over a two-foot-deep trench broke under the weight of a heavy compressor, injuring plaintiff’s foot. The accident was a covered elevation-related event under Labor law 240(1).

 

You might also like
THE EXPENSE OF DEFENDING AN ACTION WHICH STEMMED FROM AN ATTORNEY’S MISREPRESENTATION CAN MEET THE INJURY REQUIREMENT OF A JUDICIARY LAW 487 ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
Law Firm Representing Wife in a Divorce Proceeding Entitled to Charging Lien Pursuant to Judiciary Law 475 But Not Entitled to Money Judgment with Interest
THE DEFENDANT “DORMITORY AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK STATE’S” INSURERS HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE ACCIDENT; THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE THE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S SUBMISSION OF RE-OFFENSE RISK ASSESSMENTS OTHER THAN NEW YORK’S RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI) DID NOT CONSTITUTE A MITIGATING FACTOR WARRANTING DOWNWARD DEPARTURE (SECOND DEPT).
THE SECOND DEPT USED THIS OPINION AS A VEHICLE TO EXPLAIN THE COMPLEX PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS BROUGHT IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS, EMPHASIZING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THE CITY DID NOT NOTIFY THEM OF THE NEED TO REPAIR THE ABUTTING PUBLIC SIDEWALK AND THEREBY DEMONSTRATED THEY HAD NO STATUTORY DUTY TO REPAIR THE SIDEWALK; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERTY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS OF THE MORTGAGE; THE BANK NEED NOT AFFIRMATIVELY ADDRESS COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IF THE ISSUE IS NOT RAISED IN THE ANSWER; REPLY PAPERS CAN PRESENT EVIDENCE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN RESPONSE TO ISSUES FIRST RAISED IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; BUT REPLY PAPERS MAY NOT PRESENT, FOR THE FIRST TIME, EVIDENCE ADDRESSING AN ISSUE RAISED IN THE DEFENDANT’S ANSWER (SECOND DEPT).
Petitioner’s Position Properly Abolished by Enactment of Town Budget

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 AWARD OF COUNSEL FEES TO MOTHER IN THIS MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING... PLAINTIFF NURSE WAS ASSAULTED BY A PATIENT IN DEFENDANT’S HOSPITAL; SHE...