You are here: / / PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH AN UNGUARDED STAIRWAY OPENING AND WAS ENTITLED TO...
,

PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH AN UNGUARDED STAIRWAY OPENING AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SHOW THAT THE PRE-DEPOSITION SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should have been awarded summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action and the pre-deposition summary judgment motion was not premature. While transporting large wooden panels past a stairway, plaintiff fell through an unguarded stairway opening:

The court should have granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim because he was not provided with adequate protection to prevent his fall into the unguarded stairway opening … . …

… Labor Law § 240(1) is not dependent on a finding that the owner or general contractor had notice of the violation … …. [D]efendants failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Defendants’ assertion that plaintiff removed the plywood barrier is speculative … .

The fact that no depositions have been taken does not preclude summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor, as defendants failed to show that discovery might lead to facts that would support their opposition to the motion … . Defendants also failed to show that facts essential to their opposition were within plaintiff’s exclusive knowledge … .  Blacio v Related Constr. LLC,2024 NY Slip Op 02008, First Dept 4-16-24

Practice Point: A plaintiff’s pre-deposition summary judgment motion will not be dismissed as premature unless defendant demonstrates discovery might lead to relevant facts or relevant facts are within plaintiff’s exclusive knowledge.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT RE WHETHER INADEQUATE ILLUMINATION WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S STAIRWAY FALL (FIRST DEPT).
No Need to Allege “the Benefit Was Conferred at the Behest of the Defendant”
Charging an Additional 10% Contingency Fee for the Appeal, On Top of the 33 1/3% Contingency Fee for the Trial, for a Total Contingency Fee of 43 1/3 %, Was Proper—Motion Court Did Not Have the Power to Alter the Fee Agreement Sua Sponte and the Motion Court No Longer Had Jurisdiction Over the Case When It Made the Alteration
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY DID NOT DISPLACE THE BUILDING OWNER’S AND MANAGER’S DUTY TO KEEP THE ELEVATORS SAFE AND DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; IT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; A VIOLATION OF THE NYC BUILDING CODE IS NOT NEGLIGENCE PER SE (FIRST DEPT).
Dispute Within a Religious Organization Could Not Be Decided by Application of Neutral Law But Rather Would Require Looking Behind an Ecclesiastical Determination, An Inquiry Prohibited by the Establishment Clause
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE ADVERSE INTEREST EXCEPTION TO THE IN PARI DELICTO DEFENSE APPLIES IN THIS ACCOUNTANT MALPRACTICE CASE (FIRST DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE COULD APPEAL THE DENIAL OF HIS SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION AFTER ENTERING A GUILTY PLEA, WRONG ADVICE WARRANTED VACATING THE PLEA DESPITE FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ARGUMENT (FIRST DEPT).
Hearsay Statement Did Not Meet the “Reliability” Requirement for Admissibility as a Statement Against Penal Interest

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 UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM’S DENIAL OF COURT EMPLOYEES’ APPLICATIONS... PLAINTIFF IS THE SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE PLAINTIFF IN A PRIOR IDENTICAL...