You are here: / / ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS ON A LADDER WHEN INJURED, THE INJURY WAS NOT CAUSED...

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS ON A LADDER WHEN INJURED, THE INJURY WAS NOT CAUSED BY GRAVITY, LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER THE INJURY-PRODUCING WORK TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) and 200 causes of action were properly dismissed. Plaintiff was on a ladder bolting an elevated steel beam when a forklift struck another (connected) beam pinning plaintiff’s arm between the beam he was working on and the wall. The injury was deemed unrelated to the force of gravity. In addition the court found that defendant did not exercise sufficient control over the injury-producing work to be liable under Labor Law 200. However, certain Labor Law 241 (6) causes of action, alleging the injury was linked to violations of the industrial code, should not have been dismissed:

Labor Law § 240(1) ” was designed to provide exceptional protection for workers against the special hazards which stem from a work site that is either elevated or positioned below the level where materials are hoisted or secured'” … . Its purpose is “to protect construction workers not from routine workplace risks, but from the pronounced risks arising from construction work site elevation differentials” … . Merely because “a worker is injured while working above ground does not ipso facto mean that the injury resulted from an elevation-related risk contemplated by Section 240(1) of the Labor Law” … . * * *

To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 for injuries arising from the manner in which work is performed, a defendant must have the authority to exercise supervision and control over the work … . ” A defendant has the authority to supervise or control the work for purposes of Labor Law § 200 when that defendant bears the responsibility for the manner in which the work is performed'” … . ” [T]he right to generally supervise the work, stop the contractor’s work if a safety violation is noted, or to ensure compliance with safety regulations and contract specifications is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200 or for common-law negligence'”… . Guallpa v Canarsie Plaza, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 08046, 2nd Dept 11-30-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS ON A LADDER WHEN INJURED, THE INJURY WAS NOT CAUSED BY GRAVITY, LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED, DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER THE INJURY-PRODUCING WORK TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200)

You might also like
IN MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE WITH EVIDENCE SUBMITTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PRESUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP OF A VEHICLE CREATED BY THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE CAN BE REBUTTED BY PROOF OF DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE VEHICLE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISCOVER THE INSURER’S FILE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT EXERCISED DOMINION AND CONTROL OVER THE VEHICLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
USURY IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WHICH IS WAIVED IF NOT RAISED, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SEVERED USURIOUS PROVISIONS OF LOAN AGREEMENTS WHERE DEFENDANT DEFAULTED (SECOND DEPT).
POLICE REPORT DID NOT NOTIFY TOWN OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS OF A CLAIM STEMMING FROM A COLLISION WITH A TOWN SNOW PLOW, PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE WORK ON A BOILER WAS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE (NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1)) AND WHETHER A SAFETY DEVICE WAS REQUIRED, CONTRACTOR’S DEFAULT CONSTITUTED AN ADMISSION TO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT, INCLUDING THAT PLAINTIFF SUFFERED A GRAVE INJURY (TAKING THE INJURY OUT FROM UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW) (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION FELL FROM AN INVERTED BUCKET HE WAS STANDING ON TO REACH A POWER CABLE; DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THERE WAS NO NEED FOR PLAINTIFF TO ELEVATE HIMSELF TO DO HIS JOB; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY (SECOND DEPT).
PEOPLE’S REQUEST TO DENY DISCLOSURE BECAUSE OF CONCERNS FOR WITNESS SAFETY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN ITS ENTIRETY (SECOND DEPT).
SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT ANY OF THE ESPINAL FACTORS (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

EVEN IF THE MISREPRESENTATION THE HOME WAS TO BE OWNER-OCCUPIED WAS INNOCENTLY... FALLING PLYWOOD NOT ACTIONABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), PLYWOOD WAS NOT BEING...