You are here: / / A 400-POUND DUCT LIFT TOPPLED OFF AN UNSTEADY RAMP AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF;...
,

A 400-POUND DUCT LIFT TOPPLED OFF AN UNSTEADY RAMP AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF; ALTHOUGH THE LIFT DROPPED ONLY 10 TO 12 INCHES, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff was struck by a 400 pound duct lift which toppled off an unsteady ramp. The lift fell only 10 to 12 inches, but met the criteria for a gravity-related accident covered by Labor Law 240(1):

… Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), as the defendants failed to satisfy their prima facie burden. Although the defendants submitted evidence establishing that the alleged elevation differential measured only 10 to 12 inches, given the heavy weight of the duct lift and the amount of force it was capable of generating, the elevation differential was not de minimis … . The plaintiff submitted evidence to show that he suffered harm that flowed directly from the application of the force of gravity to the duct lift … .

Moreover, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the plaintiff’s cross-motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The plaintiff submitted, inter alia, a transcript of his deposition testimony, which established, prima facie, that the defendants violated Labor Law § 240(1) by failing to provide an appropriate safety device, namely a secured ramp, to protect against the elevation-related hazard that was posed by maneuvering the heavy duct lift over the ramp … . Davila v City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 05433, Second Dept 11-6-24

Practice Point: A heavy object falling 10 to 12 inches from an unsteady ramp, striking plaintiff, is covered by Labor Law 240(1). The incident was caused by defendants’ failure to provided an adequately secured ramp.

 

You might also like
THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216; THEREFORE THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT). ​
HERE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS A PASSENGER DIED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE ACTION; PLAINTIFF PASSENGER HAD SUED DECEDENT DRIVER AND THE DEFENDANT TRUCKING COMPANY; THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE DECEDENT DRIVER DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DECEDENT DRIVER; THE DEFENDANT TRUCKING COMPANY DID NOT GIVE THE INTERESTED PARTIES THE REQUIRED NOTICE OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS BASED UPON THE DRIVER’S DEATH; AND PLAINTIFF PASSENGER DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE PROCEDURES FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR TO REPRESENT THE DECEDENT DRIVER (SECOND DEPT).
Agents of Property Owner Can Be Liable Under Labor Law 240(1)
AWARDING WIFE A DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE OF HUSBAND’S MEDICAL PRACTICE AND DETERMINING HUSBAND’S MAINTENANCE OBLIGATION BASED UPON INCOME FROM THE PRACTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOUBLE-COUNTING.
PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO JURY INSTRUCTION WHICH (UNNECESSARILY) INCREASED THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF REQUIRED THE PEOPLE TO MEET THAT BURDEN.
Court’s Imposition of Restitution at Sentencing Required Reversal Because Restitution Was Not Part of Plea Agreement
PLAINTIFF HAD NO MEMORY OF EVENTS BEYOND WALKING TOWARD THE BUS AT A BUS STOP; SHE SUFFERED A CRUSHED FOOT; THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE FIRST NOTICE OF CLAIM DEMANDED ONLY AN EXTENSION OF THE CONTRACTUAL TIME-LIMIT FOR COMPLETION OF THE PLUMBING CONTRACT; THE PURPORTED AMENDED NOTICE OF CLAIM DEMANDED $2.5 MILLION IN DAMAGES; THE AMENDMENT WAS NOT TECHNICAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE THE MOTION TO AMEND WAS PROPERLY DENIED (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

MOTHER MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR RELOCATING WITH THE CHILD IN THIS CUSTODY... MOTHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED...