You are here: / / FALL FROM FIRST FLOOR TO BASEMENT FLOOR IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1),...

FALL FROM FIRST FLOOR TO BASEMENT FLOOR IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), THE UNGUARDED OPENING VIOLATED A PROVISION OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE.

The Fourth Department, overruling precedent, determined a fall from the first floor through an unguarded opening to the basement floor was a covered event under Labor Law 240 (1) and the unguarded opening violated a provision of the Industrial Code.  The decision covers a number of other substantive issues (not summarized here) including statutory agent liability, Labor Law 200 and common law negligence liability, and indemnfication:

We agree with plaintiffs that the court erred in denying that part of their motion seeking partial summary judgment on liability on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and in granting, instead, those parts of the motion of Gates and cross motion of Nolan seeking dismissal of that claim against them. We therefore further modify the order by denying those parts of the motion and cross motion, reinstating that claim, and granting that part of plaintiffs’ motion. As a preliminary matter, we note that the court relied on our decision in Riley v Stickl Constr. Co. (242 AD2d 936) for its determination that a fall from the first floor through an unguarded opening to the basement is not a fall from an elevated worksite within the meaning of section 240 (1). To the extent that Riley stands for the proposition that a worker falling from the first floor to the basement is not protected by section 240 (1), that decision is no longer to be followed. Instead, we conclude that, because there was a “difference between the elevation level of the required work and a lower level” … , and “[b]ecause plaintiff fell through an opening in the floor, [plaintiffs are] entitled to judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1)”… .

We further conclude that the court erred in denying that part of plaintiffs’ motion seeking summary judgment on the limited issue whether 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1) was violated, and we therefore further modify the order accordingly. That regulation, which is sufficiently specific to support a cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6) … , requires protection from hazardous openings. It is undisputed that the protective railings and the plywood cover had been removed from the stairwell opening and that plaintiff fell through the opening to the floor below. McKay v Weeden, 2017 NY Slip Op 02327, 4th Dept 3-24-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FALL FROM FIRST FLOOR TO BASEMENT FLOOR IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), THE UNGUARDED OPENING VIOLATED A PROVISION OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE)

You might also like
Employer’s Failure to Demonstrate a Proper Inquiry Was Made to Determine Whether Reasonable Accommodations Were Possible for a Disabled Employee Precluded Summary Judgment
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE WAS NO ALLEGATION THE PARTY TO BE ADDED AS A DEFENDANT HAD ANY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IN DISPUTE; AND THE CIVIL CONSPIRACY CAUSE OF ACTION PLAINTIFF SOUGHT TO ADD IS NOT RECOGNIZED IN NEW YORK; THEREFORE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WERE PATENTLY DEVOID OF MERIT (FOURTH DEPT).
COMPLAINT ALLEGING A MEDICAL PROCEDURE WAS PERFORMED TO WHICH PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONSENT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BATTERY (FOURTH DEPT).
LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS USING STILTS, FELL WHEN A STILT CONTACTED AN OBJECT ON THE FLOOR.
THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR A VIDEOTAPE OF AN INTERVIEW OF THE CHILD (ALLEGED) VICTIM IN THIS SEXUAL OFFENSE CASE, THE INTERVIEW WAS CONDUCTED BY A PRIVATE PARTY AND WAS DISCOVERABLE ONLY IF IT CONSTITUTED BRADY (EXCULPATORY) MATERIAL, THE JUDGE DID NOT VIEW THE TAPE TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT WAS BRADY MATERIAL (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SUED THE COUNTY SHERIFF SEEKING A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT A LOCAL COURT WHICH ISSUES A SECURING ORDER FOR A NONQUALIFYING OFFENSE VIOLATES THE ACCUSED’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS; THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT DETERMINED THERE WAS NO JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERY INVOLVING THE SHERIFF WHO IS BOUND TO OBEY A COURT’S SECURING ORDER; THE REAL DISPUTE IS WITH THE COURT WHICH ISSUES THE ORDER IN APPARENT VIOLATION OF A STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Persistent Felony Offender Statute Does Not Require Prior Felonies to be Equivalent to New York Felonies
AN OFFICER MAY FOLLOW A SUSPECT IN A POLICE VEHICLE; THE OFFICER DID NOT GET OUT OF HIS VEHICLE AND CHASE THE DEFENDANT UNTIL HE SAW THE DEFENDANT DISCARD A WEAPON; THE SEIZURE OF THE WEAPON WAS NOT THE RESULT OF UNLAWFUL POLICE CONDUCT (FOURTH 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

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES WERE CAUSED BY THE PLACEMENT... CITIZEN REVIEW BOARD HAS THE CAPACITY TO SUE AND STANDING TO BRING AN ARTICLE...