You are here: / / THE ACCIDENT WAS NOT THE TYPE OF GRAVITY-RELATED INCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR...

THE ACCIDENT WAS NOT THE TYPE OF GRAVITY-RELATED INCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1); BUT THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR WAS LIABLE PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 200 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly dismissed but the Labor Law 200 cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was injured when a pipe rolled over his foot, not the type of gravity-related accident covered by Labor Law 240 (1). But the accident related to the means and methods of the work over which the defendant general contractor (Gilbane) may have exercised supervisory control:

Plaintiff was injured while employed by nonparty Titan Industrial Corporation (TIC) when a pipe rolled onto his foot. On the day of the accident, plaintiff’s foreman instructed plaintiff and his two coworkers to insert some pipes under a concrete planter to relocate it. Plaintiff and his coworkers were pushing and pulling the planter from the sides, while the foreman was pushing it with a bobcat, when one of the pipes rolled over plaintiff’s foot, causing an injury. …

The operation, according to plaintiff’s foreman, was normally performed with two Bobcats, one pushing and one pulling the load; in this case, however, the operation was performed with only one Bobcat because the others were in use elsewhere on the site. Gilbane required that onsite Bobcat operators be licensed and kept track of all such operating engineers; in the event an unlicensed person were found to be operating a Bobcat contrary to instructions, the subcontractor would be notified by Gilbane and instructed to shut down the equipment. It is undisputed that the foreman who was operating the Bobcat involved in plaintiff’s accident lacked the required license and, if [the onsite supervisor’s] testimony is to be credited, should have been prohibited from doing so by Gilbane. Lemache v MIP One Wall St. Acquisition, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 00019, First Dept 1-5-21

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, ALLEGING DEFENDANT-ATTORNEYS FAILED TO RETURN THE BALANCE OF THE FEE PAID AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASE, PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT).
LETTER WRITTEN BY PETITIONER UPON INVOLUNTARY ADMISSION TO A HOSPITAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AS A DEMAND FOR AN EXPEDITED CHALLENGE TO THE CONFINEMENT UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW (HABEAS CORPUS), ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE IS MOOT IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE WAS HEARD ON APPEAL BECAUSE IT IS LIKELY TO RECUR (FIRST DEPT).
IT WAS ERROR TO ALLOW IN EVIDENCE PHOTOGRAPHS OF A BAYONET WHICH WAS NOT THE WEAPON USED IN THE STABBING; THE MAJORITY FOUND THE ERROR HARMLESS, THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT).
BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS CHOSE TO APPEAL THEIR TERMINATION FROM EMPLOYMENT AS CORRECTION OFFICERS TO THE NYC CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION INSTEAD OF BRINGING AN ARTICLE 78, THE COURT’S REVIEW POWERS ARE EXTREMELY LIMITED, THE TERMINATION WAS UPHELD (FIRST DEPT).
THE ALLEGATION THE A-FRAME LADDER SHIFTED FOR NO APPARENT REASON WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, NOTWITHSTANDING DEFENDANT’S EXPERT’S OPINION THE ACCIDENT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES (FIRST DEPT). ​
CHALLENGE TO THE JURY INSTRUCTION ON CAUSATION OF DEATH IS SUBJECT TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT; DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO OBJECT PRECLUDES REVIEW; STRONG DISSENT ARGUED THE JURY INSTRUCTION IS REVIEWABLE BECAUSE IT RELIEVED THE PEOPLE OF THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF.
Defense Counsel Should Have Been Allowed to Cross-Examine Cooperating Accomplice/Witness to Demonstrate Motivation and Bias
PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON A PLASTIC SHEET PLACED OVER AN ESCALATOR TO PROTECT IT FROM DRIPPING PAINT; PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 241 (6) ACTION DISMISSED; THE PLASTIC COVER WAS NOT A FOREIGN SUBSTANCE; AND THE PLASTIC COVER WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE WORK; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (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 ANSWER TO AN AMBIGUOUS QUESTION ON AN APPLICATION FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE... PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT IN THIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION...