You are here: / / NO NEED TO SHOW THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION;...

NO NEED TO SHOW THE LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION; IT WAS SUFFICIENT TO SHOW THE LADDER WAS UNSECURED AND FELL WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY DEBRIS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff was using an unsecured ladder when he was struck by debris causing him and the ladder to fall. There was no need to show the ladder was defective. It was sufficient to show the ladder was not secured:

The undisputed facts show prima facie that defendants violated Labor Law § 240(1) by failing to provide adequate safety devices to plaintiff, who was injured doing demolition work when the unsecured ladder he was using to remove a ceiling was struck by a piece of falling metal debris, causing him and the ladder to fall to the ground … . The record lacks any conflicting evidence relevant to the issue of whether Labor Law 240 (1) was violated, sufficient to raise a material issue of fact. The issues of fact relied upon by the motion court in denying partial summary judgment are immaterial to the issue of whether defendants’ violation of section 240(1) was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff was not required to show that the ladder he was using was defective, where testimony established prima facie that defendant failed to provide a safety device to insure the ladder would remain upright while plaintiff used it … . Avila v Saint David’s Sch., 2020 NY Slip Op 05571, First Dept 10-8-20

 

You might also like
The Purchasers’ Purported Retraction of an Earlier Repudiation of the Purchase Contract Was Not “Bona Fide” Because It Imposed a Condition for the Retraction Which Was Not Contemplated by the Purchase Contract—Sellers Entitled to Keep $365,000 Downpayment Based Upon Purchasers’ Failure to Close
JUSTICES DISAGREE WHETHER STOLEN PROPERTY AND ASSAULT AND ROBBERY OFFENSES SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEVERED AS NOT SIMILAR IN LAW.
PETITIONER SOUGHT A TEMPORARY LICENSE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 881 TO ENTER RESPONDENT’S ADJOINING PROPERTY TO INSTALL PROTECTIONS PRIOR TO DEMOLITION WORK ON PETITIONER’S BUILDINGS; RESPONDENT WAS ENTITLED TO FULL INDEMNIFICATION FOR ANY DAMAGE (AS OPPOSED TO INDEMNIFICATION “TO THE EXTENT COVERED BY INSURANCE”) AND TO REASONABLE EXPERT’S AND ATTORNEY’S FEES (SECOND DEPT).
WITH RESPECT TO A RESIDENTIAL COOPERATIVE, INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS CAN BE SUED BY A SHAREHOLDER FOR BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY, BUT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IS NOT AMENABLE TO SUIT APART FROM A SUIT AGAINST THE CORPORATION (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM WORTHLESS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY PLED THAT GROSS NEGLIGENCE PRECLUDED ENFORCEMENT OF THE ‘SOLE REMEDIES’ CLAUSES AND THE DEMANDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYER (TOMS) WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OF DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE (ROSNER) WHICH WERE NOT DONE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ROSNER’S EMPLOYMENT OR TO FURTHER TOMS’ BUSINESS (FIRST DEPT). ​
THERE WAS NO PROOF THE NOTICE REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304 WAS MAILED TO THE PROPER ADDRESS (FIRST DEPT).
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED A RELEASE WHICH DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME THE CASE WAS REVERSED ON APPEAL AND SENT BACK (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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PRESUMPTION A CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT (CD) HAS BEEN... FALL WHILE UNLOADING A FLATBED TRUCK CAN BE A COVERED ACTIVITY AND INVOLVED...