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
UNDER THE CITY CHARTER, THE MAYOR DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO ABOLISH A CIVIL SERVICE POSITION; ONLY THE BODY EMPOWERED TO CREATE THE POSITION CAN ABOLISH IT.
AN EMAIL EXCHANGE WAS INSUFFICIENT TO RESTART THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN OTHERWISE TIME-BARRED DEBT PURSUANT TO GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 17-101 (SECOND DEPT).
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT COMMITTED BURGLARY; DEFENDANT, THROUGH AN UNLOCKED DOOR, ENTERED A VESTIBULE THAT WAS NOT RESTRICTED TO USE BY TENANTS.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER CITY LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO INSTALL A STOP SIGN AT AN ACCIDENT-PRONE INTERSECTION.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE A SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE IT MERELY AMPLIFIED THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT AND BILL OF PARTICULARS; HOWEVER, THE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION IN THE AMENDED BILLS OF PARTICULARS WERE PROPERLY STRUCK (SECOND DEPT).
THE FACT THAT COMPLAINANT TURNED 21 DURING THE FAMILY OFFENSE HEARING DID NOT DEPRIVE FAMILY COURT OF JURISDICTION; NOR DID THE INCAPACITY OF THE COMPLAINANT (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S DOUBLE-PARKED TRUCK MERELY FURNISHED THE OCCASION FOR THE MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT OR WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT; PLAINTIFF FLIPPED OVER THE MOTORCYCLE BRAKING TO AVOID COLLIDING WITH THE TRUCK (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED HAWAII WAS THE MORE APPROPRIATE FORUM FOR THIS CUSTODY DISPUTE, HAWAII NEVER HAD SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND WAS UNAWARE OF THE FATHER’S NEW YORK CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS UNTIL AFTER THE HAWAII PROCEEDINGS WERE COMPLETED, THE HAWAII RULINGS MUST BE VACATED, ONLY THEN CAN FAMILY COURT MAKE A VALID ANALYSIS OF THE APPROPRIATE FORUM (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...