You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OBJECT THAT FELL WAS THE TYPE OF OBJECT WHICH...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OBJECT THAT FELL WAS THE TYPE OF OBJECT WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED WITH A SAFETY DEVICE ENUMERATED IN THE LABOR LAW STATUTE.

The Second Department determined summary judgment should not have been granted to plaintiff on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff fell off a scissors lift when what he alleged was a “beam” came down from above him. The object which came down was also described as a “duct.” The Second Department found there was a question of fact whether the object which came down should have been secured by a safety device enumerated in the Labor Law statute:

The evidence submitted by the plaintiff was insufficient to establish that the beam in question fell due to the absence or inadequacy of an enumerated safety device. Specifically, there was a question of fact as to the nature of the “beam” at issue. The plaintiff alternately described it as a flat or narrow “metal slab supposedly made of Steel but it was mostly [copper],” or an iron or steel “beam.” The plaintiff’s supervisor described it as “like old duct work, metal studs,” and a representative of [defendant] described it as a “duct” or “ductwork.” Although the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of an expert who opined that a contractor’s lift should have been provided to hold “the beam” as it was being cut, the expert, whose opinion was rendered after reviewing the relevant deposition transcripts, failed to identify a basis for concluding that the object at issue was a “beam” or otherwise explain why a contractor’s lift was required to hold the object at issue, and thereby establish that this was “a situation where a hoisting or securing device of the kind enumerated in the statute would have been necessary or even expected” … . Romero v 2200 N. Steel, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 02075, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OBJECT THAT FELL WAS THE TYPE OF OBJECT WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED WITH A SAFETY DEVICE ENUMERATED IN THE LABOR LAW STATUTE)

You might also like
14-Day Election Law Statute of Limitations, Not Article 78 Statute of Limitations, Applied
Town Not Liable for Negligently Picking Up Personal Items from Driveway During Garbage Collection—Garbage Collection Is a Ministerial Function—No Special Relationship with Plaintiff
FACT THAT PLAINTIFF, A PASSENGER IN THE LEAD VEHICLE, WAS NOT AT FAULT IN THE REAR-END COLLISION DOES NOT LEAD TO THE AUTOMATIC CONCLUSION THE DRIVER OF THE REAR VEHICLE WAS AT FAULT; HERE THE DRIVER OF THE REAR VEHICLE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY OIL ON THE ROADWAY; SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING THE REAR DRIVER AT FAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY BECAUSE THE BUSINESS RECORDS UPON WHICH THE REPORT WAS BASED WERE NOT PRODUCED (SECOND DEPT). ​
AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE OFFICER TESTIFIED THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S PERSON AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP WAS BASED UPON THE ODOR OF MARIJUANA; THE OFFICER DID NOT TESTIFY HE WAS QUALIFIED BY TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE TO RECOGNIZE THE ODOR OF MARIJUANA; THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Petitioner Was Not Estopped from Denying Paternity—Family Court’s Ruling to the Contrary Reversed
Tractor-Trailer Veered Into Oncoming Lane Striking Bus/Emergency Doctrine Required Dismissal of Complaint Against Bus Company and Driver as a Matter of Law/Lessor of Trailer Protected Against Vicarious Liability by Graves Amendment/Negligent Entrustment Cause of Action Against Lessor of Trailer Dismissed as a Matter of Law (No Special Knowledge Use of Trailer by Lessee Would Render It Unreasonably Dangerous)
IN THIS HOTEL-ROOM SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD WAS NOT OBLIGATED BY CONTRACT OR COURSE OF CONDUCT TO REPAIR DANGEROUS CONDITIONS AND THE LESSEE OF THE HOTEL DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE OR ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE WATER ON THE BATHROOM FLOOR IN PLAINTIFF’S ROOM; DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE... PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INJURED ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF...