You are here: / / IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 TRIAL, THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION...
, , ,

IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 TRIAL, THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE BETTER PRACTICE WOULD HAVE BEEN TO RESERVE ON THE MOTION AND LET THE MATTER GO TO THE JURY; AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE LABOR LAW 200 VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE THE VERDICT WAS INCONSISTENT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for a judgment as a matter of law pursuant to CPLR 4401 should have been denied and plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) in this Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6) and 200 scaffold-fall case should have been granted. The defendants’ motion to dismiss the Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action were granted because the court found defendants exempt pursuant to the homeowner exemption. Plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict because the jury found the defendant homeowner (Nielson) was negligent in striking the scaffold with a Bobcat, but also illogically found the negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident:

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, we conclude that different inferences could be drawn from the evidence on the issue of whether Nielson had authority to or exercised authority to direct or control the work. Affording the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference and considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, there was a rational process by which a jury could find that the defendants were not exempt from liability by reason of the homeowner exemption under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), and could find that they were liable under Labor Law § 200 … .

We note that, in the interest of judicial economy, the better practice would have been for the Supreme Court to reserve determination on the motion for a directed verdict on the Labor Law causes of action, and allow those causes of action to go to the jury. “There is little to gain and much to lose by granting the motion for judgment as a matter of law after . . . the evidence has been submitted to the jury and before the jury has rendered a verdict. If the appellate court disagrees, there is no verdict to reinstate and the trial must be repeated” … . …

Assuming that Nielson struck the scaffold with the Bobcat, which was the only theory of common-law negligence presented by the plaintiff, then it is logically impossible under the circumstances to find that such negligence was not a substantial factor in causing the accident. Thus, the issues of negligence and proximate cause were so inextricably interwoven as to make it logically impossible to find Nielson negligent without also finding proximate cause. Brewer v Ross, 2020 NY Slip Op 06483, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

You might also like
THE BANK DID NOT PROVE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
SURGERY, EVEN AFTER A DEFENSE REQUEST FOR A PRE-SURGERY PHYSICAL EXAM, IS NOT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE AND DOES NOT WARRANT SANCTIONS (SECOND DEPT).
THE STIPULATION SIGNED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL, IN AN EFFORT TO AVOID SHOWING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY TO THE JURY, EFFECTIVELY REMOVED THE MENS REA ELEMENT OF THE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CHARGES FROM THE JURY’S CONSIDERATION; CONVICTION REVERSED ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS (SECOND DEPT). ​
STREET STOP NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER DE BOUR ANALYSIS, SEIZED FIREARM AND STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
“To a Reasonable Degree of Medical Probability” Properly States the Standard for Expert Opinion on Proximate Cause
THE PETITION BROUGHT BY THE EXECUTOR PURSUANT TO SCPA 2103 SOUGHT DISCOVERY AND THE TURNOVER OF ANNUITY FUNDS WHICH HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED TO APPELLANT; THE SCPA 21O3 ACTION IS LIKE AN ACTION FOR CONVERSION OR REPLEVIN AND HAS A THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; HERE THE MOTIONS TO AMEND THE ANSWERS TO ASSERT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT GROUND SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE METEOROLOGIST’S AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED TO SHOW THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS WHEN PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY THE RECORDS RELIED UPON BY THE AFFIANT; THE AFFIDAVIT THEREFORE HAD NO PROBATIVE VALUE (SECOND DEPT).
DETERIORATING MENTAL CONDITION AND DEPLORABLE LIVING CONDITIONS JUSTIFIED REVOCATION OF PISTOL PERMIT.

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

INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS IN THE ZONE OF DANGER AND WITNESSED A TRUCK STRIKE AND... THE POLICE CAR FOLLOWED DEFENDANT, FIVE FEET BEHIND HIM, AS HE WALKED THROUGH...