You are here: / / TRIPPING OVER A GAP BETWEEN THE TOP STEP OF A STAIRCASE AND THE LANDING...

TRIPPING OVER A GAP BETWEEN THE TOP STEP OF A STAIRCASE AND THE LANDING IS NOT A GRAVITY-RELATED INCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1); RE: LABOR LAW 241(6), THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING COVERS OVER HAZARDOUS OPENINGS APPLIES ONLY TO OPENINGS A WORKER CAN COMPLETELLY FALL THROUGH (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined (1) tripping because of a gap between the top step of a staircase and the landing was not the type of gravity-related incident covered by Labor Law 240(1), (2) the industrial code provision requiring covers over hazardous openings applies only to openings through which a worker can completely fall through, and (3), the industrial code provision prohibiting tripping hazards was applicable:

… [T]he plaintiff’s injuries did not fall within the ambit of Labor Law § 240(1) because they did not occur as the result of an elevation-related or gravity-related risk … .

“Labor Law § 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to construction workers” … 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1)(i) provides that “[e]very hazardous opening into which a person may step or fall shall be guarded by a substantial cover fastened in place or by a safety railing.” “The provision pertaining to ‘hazardous openings’ … does not apply to openings that are too small for a worker to completely fall through” … .

… Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on so much of the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action as was predicated on a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1), which relates to tripping hazards … . Castro v Wythe Gardens, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 03329, Second Dept 6-21-23

Practice Point: Tripping over a gap between the top step of a staircase and the landing is not covered by Labor Law 240(1).

Practice Point: Re: Labor Law 241(6): The industrial code provision requiring covers over hazardous openings applies only to openings a worker can completely fall through.

 

You might also like
Failure to Affirmatively Demonstrate When the Area Where the Slip and Fall Occurred Was Last Inspected and Failure to Affirmatively Demonstrate the Condition Was a “Latent Defect” Precluded Summary Judgment—Defendants Failed to Affirmatively Demonstrate the Absence of Constructive Notice of the Condition
COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), THE COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE, EVEN IF IT DID NOT EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT).
INFANT PLAINTFF WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT DRIVER WHILE IN A CROSS-WALK WITH THE WALK SIGNAL ON; SUN-GLARE IS NOT AN “EMERGENCY” WHICH WILL RAISE A QUESTON OF FACT; PLAINTIFFS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Defendants Demonstrated They Were Entitled to Depose Nonparty Physician Whose Notations Expressed Skepticism About the Cause of Plaintiff’s Injuries
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONFIGURATION AT THE TOP OF THE STAIRS AND THE ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL WERE NOT DANGEROUS CONDITIONS WHICH PROXIMATELY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S FALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT.
SEARCH OF JACKET POCKET NOT PRECEDED BY PAT DOWN SEARCH; SEIZURE OF WEAPON FROM JACKET POCKET NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE.
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS FOUND AT THE BOTTOM OF STAIRS; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE CAUSE OF THE FALL WAS UNKNOWN; IN ADDITION, THE NOSEWORTHY DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).
THE SCHOOL TOOK REASONABLE STEPS TO PREVENT A STUDENT, J. P., FROM ASSAULTING AN UNIDENTIFIED STUDENT AFTER THE SCHOOL LEARNED OF A RUMOR THAT J.P. INTENDED TO FIGHT SOMEONE; WHEN CONFRONTED AND WARNED J.P. DENIED THAT HE INTENDED TO ASSAULT ANYONE; TWO DAYS LATER J.P. ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF’S CHILD; THE SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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 DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL... THE BANK’S SECOND MOTION IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA...