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
Striking Answer for Spoliation of Evidence Too Severe a Sanction—Spoliation Was Not “Willful or Contumacious,” Both Parties Were Prejudiced by the Loss, Plaintiff Was Not Deprived of Means of Proving the Claim
DEFENDANT DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN DEFENSE ATTORNEY INDICATED THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA.
DESPITE MOTHER’S DEFAULT, CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED WITHOUT A HEARING AND FINDINGS ON THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
THE POLICE REPORT WHICH INCLUDED THE LICENSE PLATE NUMBER OF THE CAR ALLEGED TO HAVE FLED THE SCENE OF THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY; HOWEVER, OTHER EVIDENCE, INCLUDING THE TESTIMONY OF THE DRIVER OF THE CAR WHICH WAS STRUCK, SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED THE LICENSE PLATE NUMBER AND THE CAR (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PIECE OF A BUILDING FACADE WHICH CAME LOOSE; PLAINTIFF SUED TWO DEFENDANTS WHO HAD DONE WORK IN THE ROADWAY NEAR THE BUILDING, ALLEGING THE EXCAVATION LOOSENED THE FACADE MATERIAL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SIDEWALK REPAIR TOO FAR REMOVED FROM WORK ON A STRUCTURE, I.E., A GAS MAIN, INJURY NOT WITHIN PURVIEW OF LABOR LAW 240 (1).
INJURED PARTY DID NOT TIMELY NOTIFY INSURER OF HIS CLAIM, INSURER NOT OBLIGATED TO SATISFY DEFAULT JUDGMENT AGAINST THE INSURED.
THE POLICE TESTIMONY AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING WAS NOT WORTHY OF BELIEF; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGALITY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (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 © 2025 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...