You are here: / / IN A FALLING OBJECT CASE WHERE INADEQUATE SAFETY EQUIPMENT IS ALLEGED,...

IN A FALLING OBJECT CASE WHERE INADEQUATE SAFETY EQUIPMENT IS ALLEGED, THE FACT THAT THE PLAINTIFF DOES NOT KNOW WHAT THE OBJECT WAS DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this falling object case. Plaintiff did not see or know what struck him. There was a hole in the protective netting:

… [T]he fact that the injured plaintiff could not identify the object that struck him or its origin did not preclude summary judgment in plaintiffs’ favor. A plaintiff’s prima facie case in a Labor Law § 240(1) action involving falling objects is not dependent on whether the plaintiff observed the object that hit him … . Further, a plaintiff is not required to show the exact circumstances under which the object fell, where a lack of a protective device proximately caused the injuries … . Here, plaintiff testified that he was struck on the head and neck by an unknown object while working on an outrigging platform on the 25th floor of the building under construction. He also testified that he heard workers stripping wood on the floors above him at the time of the accident, and submitted photographs depicting a large hole in the safety netting that served as overhead protection. This evidence was sufficient to establish prima facie that the accident was the result of a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) … . In opposition, defendants failed to provide any version of the accident under which they could not be held liable, making summary judgment appropriate … . Harsanyi v Extell 4110 LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 05313, First Dept 10-19-23

Practice Point: Here plaintiff alleged he was struck by a falling object and the safety netting was inadequate. The fact that he did not know what the object was did not preclude summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.

 

You might also like
Termination of Petitioner’s Tenancy Based Upon An Isolated Angry Outburst Targeting a Housing Authority Employee Is “Shocking to the Conscience”
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNAKING A WIRE ABOVE CEILING TILES IS ‘CONSTRUCTION’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241(6); SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
Lateral Shift of Heavy Equipment, Which Pinned Plaintiff Against a Column, Not Gravity-Related—Not Covered Under Labor Law 240 (1)
NEW YORK DOES NOT HAVE GENERAL OR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER A UK CORPORATION WHICH ALLEGEDLY MANUFACTURED A DEFECTIVE PART OF AN EXCAVATOR (FIRST DEPT). ​
Criteria for an “Open and Obvious” Defense and an “Intervening or Superseding Cause” Defense Described—Effect of Plaintiff’s Intoxication and Lack of Memory Re: the Accident Discussed
In the Absence of a Defect, Inherently Smooth Floors Do Not Give Rise to Liability
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT’S DOUBLE-PARKED CAR WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT; PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A BICYCLIST, WAS STRUCK BY A TRUCK WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO GO AROUND DEFENDANT’S DOUBLE-PARKED CAR (FIRST DEPT). ​
LADDER MOVED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION (FIRST 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

A JUDGE CANNOT ENTER A JUDGMENT WHICH DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE ORDER; HERE THE... ​ ALTHOUGH THE STATUTORY SPEEDY TRIAL RULES DO NOT APPLY TO STAND-ALONE TRAFFIC...