You are here: / / THERE IS NO BRIGHT-LINE MINIMUM HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL FOR AN ELEVATION HAZARD...
,

THERE IS NO BRIGHT-LINE MINIMUM HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL FOR AN ELEVATION HAZARD PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240(1); HERE A FALL OF 10.5 TO 20 INCHES FROM A STACK OF PALLETS WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action based upon a fall from a height of 10.5 to 20 inches. The court noted that, despite caselaw holding that a fall of 12 inches did not trigger the statute, there is no bright-line minimum height differential for an elevation hazard. Plaintiff was standing on a stack of pallets to operate a masonry saw when a plank broke and he fell:

The fact that plaintiff fell from a height of approximately 10 ½ to 20 inches is not a bar to summary judgment because the height differential is not, as a matter of law, de minimis. While this Court has previously held that a height differential of at most 12 inches above the floor was insufficient to find an elevation-related risk … , the jurisprudence of this Court has since evolved, recently reiterating that “[t]here is no bright-line minimum height differential that determines whether an elevation hazard exists” … . We have repeatedly found violations of Labor Law § 240(1) predicated upon falls from similar heights as the one at bar (see Ferguson v Durst Pyramid, LLC, 178 AD3d 634, 635 [1st Dept 2019] [fall from inverted bucket]; see also Megna, 306 AD2d at 164 [fall from temporary two-step wooden staircase]; Brown, 137 AD3d at 703-704 [fall through an opening in latticework rebar deck to plywood 12 to 18 inches below]; Arrasti, 60 AD3d at 583 [fall from ramp to the floor 18 inches below]; Haskins, 227 AD3d at 409 [fall into hole 2 to 2 ½ feet deep]). Furthermore, here, the senior superintendent of defendant Tishman Construction Corporation of New York admitted that the makeshift pallet structure was an “improper work platform” that was “against the most basic safety rules.” Palumbo v Citigroup Tech., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 04298, First Dept 7-24-25

Practice Point: There is no bright-line minimum height differential for an elevation hazard which will trigger liability under Labor Law 240(1). Here a fall of between 10.5 and 20 inches from a stack of pallets warranted summary judgment.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF CAN BE ACCOMPANIED BY A NONLEGAL REPRESENTATIVE TO A DEFENSE PHYSICAL EXAM (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE COLLAPSE OF A CEILING CAUSED A BULGING DISC IN HER SPINE; SUPREME COURT HELD THE SURGERY TO REPAIR THE DISC CONSTITUTED SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE AND PROHIBITED PLAINTIFF FROM INTRODUCING ANY EVIDENCE OF THE SPINE INJURY; THE 1ST DEPARTMENT REVERSED HOLDING THAT A SPOLIATION ANALYSIS CANNOT BE APPLIED TO MEDICAL TREATMENT (FIRST DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DEFERRED TO THE NYC BOARD OF STANDARDS AND APPEALS’ INTERPRETATION OF AN AMBIGUOUS ZONING RESOLUTION WHICH ALLOWED THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 55 STORY CONDOMINIUM BUILDING; THE BUILDING IS COMPLETE AND THE DOCTRINE OF MOOTNESS APPLIES TO PRECLUDE THE APPEAL (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, BASED UPON A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD, PROPERLY GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPTS TO RELY ON AN ALLEGED HEARSAY STATEMENT BY THE PLAINTIFF TO THE EFFECT THAT HE FELL WHEN CLIMBING UP TO THE SCAFFOLD, REJECTED, NO APPLICABLE EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (FIRST DEPT).
THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS WERE NOTIFIED THAT THE ELEVATOR DOORS CLOSED TOO FAST AND WHETHER REPAIRS TO THE DOOR COULD BE RELATED TO THE CLOSING VELOCITY; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HIS THUMB WAS CAUGHT IN THE CLOSING DOOR; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS TOLD TO PAINT ONLY WHERE HE COULD REACH WITHOUT THE LADDER IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THIS ATTORNEY’S FEES DISPUTE WHETHER THERE WAS AN ORAL AGREEMENT TO RETURN THE UNEXHAUSTED PORTION OF THE RETAINER PAID BY PLAINTIFF AND WHETHER THE VOLUNTARY PAYMENT DOCTRINE APPLIED (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS SCAFFOLD-FALL CASE, EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF WAS INSTRUCTED TO USE GUARD RAILS ON THE SCAFFOLD BUT DID NOT REQUIRED DENIAL OF PLAINTFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF 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

THE FIRST DEPARTMENT, AGREEING WITH THE SECOND, DETERMINED THE ADMINISTRATION... THE PURPOSE AND REACH OF THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) EXPLAINED...