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
Provision in Separation Agreement Which Called for Employment of the Wife by the Husband Deemed an Employment Contract Breached When Wife Opened a Competing Business
THE EVIDENCE OF “PHYSICAL INJURY” IN THIS ASSAULT SECOND PROSECUTION WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER BASED UPON A PRIOR FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY CONVICTION; THE ISSUE FALLS WITHIN A NARROW EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM EYE INJURY ASSOCIATED WITH USE OF A NAIL GUN PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
COUNTY COURT PROPERLY GRANTED THE PEOPLE’S REQUEST TO PREVENT REMOVAL OF DEFENDANT’S CASE TO FAMILY COURT UNDER THE “RAISE THE AGE ACT;” THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
FAMILY COURT DID NOT MAKE FACTUAL FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF ITS GRANT OF SOLE CUSTODY, MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIIENTLY ALLEGE DEFENDANT ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY FUNCTIONED AS A DE FACTO RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY BY PROVIDING HEALTH-RELATED SERVICES; THEREFORE THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW CAUSES OF ACTION, AVAILABLE ONLY FOR SUITS AGAINST RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITIES, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THAT, IF IT WAS ERROR TO ADMIT TESTIMONY THAT THE RAPE VICTIM WAS AWARE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN INCARCERATED, THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE EVIDENCE HAD NO PROBATIVE VALUE BECAUSE THE VICTIM’S STATE OF MIND WAS NOT IN ISSUE AND ITS INTRODUCTION WAS THERFORE HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL (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...