You are here: / / PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS STRUCK BY A BRICK WHICH RICOCHETED OUT OF A CHUTE...

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS STRUCK BY A BRICK WHICH RICOCHETED OUT OF A CHUTE USED FOR DUMPING DEBRIS FROM THE UPPER FLOORS OF A BUILDING UNDERGOING DEMOLITION; THE CONTRACTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant general contractor’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action should not have been granted. During the demolition of a building plaintiff (allegedly) was struck by a brick which ricocheted out of a chute used for dumping debris from the upper floors:

The debris that was being removed from the building was thrown down the elevator chute, and the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by materials which descended from a higher floor and ricocheted out of the chute into the area where the plaintiff was working. The protections of Labor Law § 240(1) are implicated because the plaintiff’s injuries were caused either by the inadequacy of the chute in protecting him from the elevation-related risk resulting from the disposal of the debris down that chute, or the failure to employ other safety devices for the removal of the debris, which might have provided the necessary protection … . …

In support of that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action, [the contractor] failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(a)(1), 23-1.20(a), 23-2.5(a), and 23-3.3(e) did not apply to the facts of this case, or that the alleged violations of these provisions were not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries … . Rivas-Pichardo v 292 Fifth Ave. Holdings, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 05600, Second Dept 10-13-21

 

You might also like
​ PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED TO DEFENDANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED WHEN DEFENDANT DRIVER, WHO WAS BEING CHASED BY THE POLICE DEFENDANTS, COLLIDED WITH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S VEHICLE; THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THE “RECKLESS DISREGARD” ACTION AGAINST THE POLICE WAS REVERSED BECAUSE OF THE OMISSION OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND THE ADMISSION OF PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PIZZA-DELIVERY DRIVER WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE ALLEGELDY RESISTED ARREST AND INJURED PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER; THE OFFICER’S SUIT AGAINST THE DRIVER’S EMPLOYER, UNDER VICARIOUS LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENT HIRING THEORIES, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO DISMISS THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, DEFENDANT DID NOT UTTERLY REFUTE THE ALLEGATION IT CREATED THE CONDITION OR THAT IT HAD NOT ASSUMED THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING THE SIDEWALK BY THE TERMS OF ITS LEASE (SECOND DEPT).
SENDING THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE TO TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, WHICH IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION; BECAUSE THE NOTICE WAS NOT SENT TO EACH BORROWER IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO SUE UNDER AN INSTALLMENT CONTRACT ALLEGEDLY ASSIGNED TO HIM; THE DOCUMENTS UPON WHICH PLAINTIFF RELIED DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (SECOND DEPT).
BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING (REQUIREMENTS OF BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE NOT MET), SUPREME COURT REVERSED.
QUESTION OF FACT RAISED UNDER DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR, PLAINTIFF CONTRACTED HEPATITIS C AFTER COLONOSCOPY.

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

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR INTIMIDATING WITNESSES... PLAINTIFF RELIED ON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED TO DEMONSTRATE...