You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DIVING UNDER A TRUCK WHEN THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION...
,

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DIVING UNDER A TRUCK WHEN THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION AS A BROKEN UTILITY POLE WITH LIVE ELECTRIC WIRES WAS BEING HOISTED; THE WORK WAS NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SO THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS ON THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION; QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE CAUSE OF THE EXPLOSION AND SUPERVISORY CONTROL PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendants’ summary judgment motion on the Labor Law 241(6) and 200 causes of action should not have been granted. Plaintiff was 150 feet away from a broken utility pole which needed to be removed. The pole was damaged when struck by a vehicle and the attached electric wires were live. Plaintiff was injured diving under a truck when there was an explosion as the pole was being hoisted:

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the work they were performing at the time of the incident constituted routine maintenance or repairs not within the ambit of Labor Law § 241(6) … . The defendants’ evidentiary submissions indicated that the incident occurred while the defendants were hoisting a portion of the utility pole to enable the total replacement of the pole, which had been severely damaged after a vehicle hit the pole. Thus, the defendants’ evidentiary submissions did not demonstrate, prima facie, that the work involved merely “replacing components that require replacement in the course of normal wear and tear” …. . * * *

… [T]he defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they had no authority to supervise or control the work being performed by the defendants’ own employees at the time of the incident … . Further, to the extent the plaintiff alleged that the incident was caused by a dangerous condition, the defendants did not address the issues of whether they created or had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition … . Accordingly, the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 … . Ricottone v PSEG Long Is., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 06155, Second Dept 11-29-23

Practice Point: Labor Law 241(6) does not apply to routine maintenance. Replacing a utility pole struck by a vehicle is not routine maintenance.

Practice Point: Where there is a question of fact about the cause of dangerous condition and whether defendant has supervisory control over the worksite, summary judgment in favor of defendant on a Labor Law 200 cause of action is precluded.

 

You might also like
EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE.
IF THE JUDGE DOES NOT LAY OUT IN DETAIL THE SPECIFIC CONDUCT JUSTIFYING A DISMISSAL OF AN ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 ARE NOT MET AND THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD FOR THE FILING OF ANOTHER COMPLAINT (CPLR 205(A)) IS AVAILABLE (SECOND DEPT).
PROTECTIVE ORDER ALLOWING THE PEOPLE TO HOLD BACK INFORMATION (OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO AUTOMATIC DISCLOSURE) UNTIL AFTER JURY SELECTION VACATED; MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW THE DEFENSE TO OPPOSE THE REQUEST FOR THE ORDER; THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW DISCOVERY PROVISIONS ADDRESSED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).
Sudden Unexpected Action by Student Did Not Support Action Based on Negligent Supervision
HERE THE STATE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR TOXIC TORTS ACTIONS WAS PRE-EMPTED BY A FEDERAL “DISCOVERY RULE” WHICH ALLOWS A TOXIC-TORT ACTION TO BE BROUGHT WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE PLAINTIFF KNEW OR REASONABLY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THE CAUSE OF AN INJURY, EVEN IF MORE THAN FIVE YEARS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE THE DISCOVERY OF THE INJURY (SECOND DEPT). ​
ALTHOUGH THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS NOT OPPOSED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).
CITY WAS NOT ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE TO A CHALLENGE TO CITY WATER BILLS, ALTHOUGH AN INACCURATE BILL HAD BEEN ISSUED, THE ERROR WAS CORRECTED AND THE CITY DID NOT ACT IMPROPERLY (SECOND DEPT).
THE QUARRY OWNER HAD, AS A PRE-EXISTING NONCONFORMING USE, A VESTED RIGHT TO MINE THAT PORTION OF ITS LAND SUBJECT TO A PENDING APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (DEP); ZONING BOARD AND SUPREME COURT REVERSED (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