You are here: / / PLAINTIFF INJURED HIS BACK LIFTING A HEAVY METAL STRUCTURE A FEW INCHES...

PLAINTIFF INJURED HIS BACK LIFTING A HEAVY METAL STRUCTURE A FEW INCHES TO ALLOW ROOFING MATERIAL TO BE PUT DOWN UNDERNEATH IT; THE INJURY WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff injured his back lifting a metal structure a few inches so roofing material could be applied underneath it. The injury was not related to the failure to provide a safety device to prevent an elevation-related injury:

… “[L]iability may . . . be imposed under [Labor Law § 240 (1)] only where the ‘plaintiff’s injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential’ ” … . The statute “was designed to prevent those types of accidents in which the scaffold, hoist, stay, ladder or other protective device proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person” … . … [T]he protections of Labor Law § 240 (1) ” ‘do not encompass any and all perils that may be connected in some tangential way with the effects of gravity’ ” … .

… Although plaintiff’s back injury was “tangentially related to the effects of gravity upon the [structure] he was lifting, it was not caused by the limited type of elevation-related hazards encompassed by Labor Law § 240 (1)” … . … [P]laintiff’s injuries “resulted from a ‘routine workplace risk[]’ of a construction site and not a ‘pronounced risk[] arising from construction work site elevation differentials’ ” … . Branch v 1908 W. Ridge Rd, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 06248, Fourth Dept 11-12-21

 

You might also like
CITY’S OWN PAPERS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FLOODING WAS CAUSED BY A FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM, CITY’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA), HEALTH CARE WORKERS WHO TREATED COVID-19 PATIENTS WERE IMMUNE FROM CIVIL LIABILITY; THE EDTPA HAS SINCE BEEN REPEALED; THE REPEAL SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY; THE CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING IMPROPER TREATMENT FOR COVID-19 DURING THE TIME THE EDTPA WAS IN EFFECT MUST BE DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
Mental Health Counseling Can Not Be Made a Condition of Visitation and Court Can Not Delegate Authority to Determine When Visitation Should Be Resumed
DEFENDANT DRIVER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT WAS BLACK ICE, PLAINTIFF PASSENGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO ADD THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Broad Arbitration Clause Required Arbitration of Topic Not Directly Covered by Collective Bargaining Agreement
THE PORTION OF THE ARBITRATOR’S AWARD WHICH CONFLICTED WITH THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT AND THE PORTION OF THE AWARD WHICH WAS NONFINAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY SUPREME COURT (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW ACTION AGAINST A NURSING HOME, DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS’ OPINIONS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SUBMISSION OF DECEDENT’S MEDICAL RECORDS, RENDERING THE OPINIONS SPECULATIVE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

THE DWI COUNTS WERE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER WHICH... SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED A HEARING ON THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE...