You are here: / / PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN UNSECURED A-FRAME LADDER THAT SHIFTED FOR NO APPARENT...

PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN UNSECURED A-FRAME LADDER THAT SHIFTED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted in this Labor Law 240 (1) action based upon the allegation an unsecured A-frame ladder shifted for no apparent reason cause plaintiff to fall from it:

Labor Law § 240(1) imposes upon owners and general contractors, and their agents, a nondelegable duty to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites… . “To prevail on a Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, a plaintiff must establish that the statute was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries” … .

Here, the plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). According to [plaintiff’s] deposition testimony, he was standing on an unsecured A-frame ladder when the ladder shifted for no apparent reason, causing him to fall … . In opposition, [defendant] failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Alvarez’s own actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident … . Alvarez v Vingsan L.P., 2017 NY Slip Op 04241, 2nd Dept 5-31-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN UNSECURED A-FRAME LADDER THAT SHIFTED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED)/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN UNSECURED A-FRAME LADDER THAT SHIFTED FOR NO APPARENT REASON, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED)

You might also like
DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DEPRESSION OR HOLE PLAINTIFF STEPPED INTO, AREA WAS COVERED WITH GRASS AND APPEARED TO BE LEVEL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
A MONETARY PENALTY IMPOSED UPON PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY, AS OPPOSED TO DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT, WAS THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE DISCOVERY (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT THE SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IN A CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASE; COUNSEL MADE AN ARGUMENT WHICH WAS EXPRESSLY REJECTED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE 2ND DEPARTMENT (SECOND DEPT).
ORDERS ISSUED WHEN THE STAY PURSUANT TO CPLR 321(c) WAS IN EFFECT, DUE TO THE INABILITY OF PETITIONER’S COUNSEL TO CONTINUE FOR MEDICAL REASONS, SHOULD HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
In the Absence of Finding of Aggravating Circumstances an Order of Protection Cannot Exceed Two Years
“Conclusory” Affidavit Submitted In Support of Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action Did Not Demonstrate the Allegation Defendants Were Directly Liable for Negligent Maintenance of a Taxi Cab Was “Not a Fact At All”—Analytical Criteria Explained
Record Did Not Demonstrate Defendant Understood His Miranda Rights—Statement Should Have Been Suppressed
COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NEED FOR A LEFT TURN SIGNAL HAD BEEN STUDIED, THEREFORE THE COUNTY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON IMMUNITY GROUNDS.

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

ALTHOUGH THE BUILDING OWNER WAS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED ON THE LESSEE’S... PLAINTIFF SLIPPED ON ROSIN PAPER WHICH WAS PLACED ON THE STEPS AS AN INTEGRAL...