You are here: / / IF A LADDER IS NOT SECURED AND IT MOVES, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT MOVES...
,

IF A LADDER IS NOT SECURED AND IT MOVES, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT MOVES BEFORE OR AFTER PLAINTIFF LOSES HIS BALANCE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION IS WARRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S PURPORTED STATEMENT IN AN UNCERTIFIED MEDICAL RECORD WHICH WAS NOT GERMANE TO TREATMENT WAS INADMISSIBLE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) the fact that the ladder was not secured and moved warranted summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action, and (2) plaintiff’s purported remark which was included in an uncertified medical record and was not germane to treatment was inadmissible:

Plaintiff’s testimony that he fell because he lost his balance and the ladder on which he was standing shook established his prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim … . Contrary to the motion court’s conclusion, “[i]t is irrelevant whether plaintiff initially lost his balance before or after the ladder [shook] because . . . the ladder failed to remain steady under plaintiff[ ] . . . as he performed his work” … . Nor is this “a case where an issue of fact is raised as to whether plaintiff simply lost his balance or footing while working on a properly secured ladder. Indeed, plaintiff’s fall was directly related to the work that he was performing, as opposed to his own misstep” … . “Defendants were obligated to ensure that the ladder was secured to something stable” … . “Where a ladder is offered as a work-site safety device, it must be sufficient to provide proper protection. It is well settled that failure to properly secure a ladder, to ensure that it remain[s] steady and erect while being used, constitutes a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1)”  … . …

Defendants failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident. The only evidence on which defendants relied was a recorded statement purportedly made by plaintiff after his accident that appears on a single page from his medical records. However, not only was the medical record uncertified and, therefore, inadmissible, but plaintiff’s description of the accident in that statement was not germane to his diagnosis or treatment … . Diaz v Boston Props., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 03114, First Dept 5-19-26

​Practice Point: Ladders which are not secured to something stable violate Labor Law 240(1).

 

You might also like
IN A MED MAL CASE, AN EXPERT AFFIDAVIT WHICH MAKES ASSERTIONS UNSUPPORTED AND BELIED BY THE RECORD AND, FOR THE FIRST TIME, ASSERTS ISSUES NOT ENCOMPASSED BY THE COMPLAINT OR BILL OF PARTICULARS, DOES NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).
IN A RARE REVERSAL OF A BENCH TRIAL ON EVIDENTIARY GROUNDS, THE 1ST DEPT DETERMINED FOUR OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY THE VICTIM IN THIS SEXUAL-OFFENSE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED UNDER THE “EXCITED UTTERANCE” OR “PROMPT OUTCRY” THEORIES; THE COURT NOTED THAT ONLY THE FACT OF THE COMPLAINT, NOT THE ACCOMPANYING DETAILS, ARE ADMISSIBLE AS A “PROMPT OUTCRY” (FIRST DEPT). ​
Insufficient Proof to Support “Medical Neglect” Finding
ICE ON SIDEWALK MAY HAVE PRE-EXISTED RECENT SNOW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
BANK’S POSSESSION OF THE NOTES CONSOLIDATED BY A CONSOLIDATION, EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION AGREEMENT (CEMA) CONFERRED STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, POSSESSION OF THE ORIGINAL NOTES WAS NOT REQUIRED (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).
BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION BY CALIFORNIA TRUSTEE OF MORTGAGE-BACKED-SECURITIES TRUSTS IS CONTROLLED BY NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE AND MUST BE TIMELY UNDER BOTH CALIFORNIA AND NEW YORK LAW, SUIT WAS UNTIMELY UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW (FIRST DEPT).
INFANT PLAINTIFF, H.M., WAS INJURED BY HOT WATER IN THE SHOWER; THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO REPLACED THE WATER HEATER MAY BE LIABLE; THE FOSTER-CARE SERVICE WHICH PLACED H.M. IN THE HOME, HOWEVER, COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN THE INCIDENT (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

AN IN DEPTH ANALYSIS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL PRIORITY ISSUES RAISED IN A CUSTODY... A SERIES OF REMARKS MADE BY HIS SERGEANT OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS RAISED QUESTIONS...