You are here: / / THE EIGHT-INCH WIDE BEAM CLAIMANT WAS MOVING ALONG WHEN HE FELL WAS THE...

THE EIGHT-INCH WIDE BEAM CLAIMANT WAS MOVING ALONG WHEN HE FELL WAS THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A SCAFFOLD, BRINGING THE ACTION WITHIN THE SCOPE OF LABOR LAW 240(1); THE SAFETY LINE PROVIDED TO CLAIMANT DID NOT PROTECT HIM FROM THE FALL; CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined claimant’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should have been granted. Claimant, Lazo, was moving along an eight-inch wide, 17-foot long, beam suspended above a platform when he fell. He was attached to two safety lines which he had to detach and reattach to anchorage points. He fell while in the process of reattaching one of the lines. The second line did not prevent the fall:

Lazo would use a hook at the end of each safety line to secure it to various anchorage points on another horizontal beam located above him. To move across the beam, workers were instructed to unhook the first safety line from the first anchorage point, connect it to a second anchorage point, and then repeat this process with the second safety line. This effectively allowed workers to move along the beam while always having at least one safety line attached to an anchorage point. * * *

Lazo’s deposition testimony established, prima facie, that his accident was within the purview of Labor Law § 240(1), since the beam from which he fell was being used as the functional equivalent of a scaffold … . Lazo’s deposition testimony also established, prima facie, that his second safety line was attached to an anchorage point but was nevertheless insufficient to prevent him from falling … . Lazo v New York State Thruway Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 02400, Second Dept 4-13-22

Practice Point: Here an eight-inch wide, 17 foot-long beam suspended eight feet above a platform was the functional equivalent of a scaffold. The fall from the beam therefore was within the scope of Labor Law 240(1).

 

You might also like
Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) Alone Will Not Support Civil Commitment of Sex Offender
THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE BANK TO PROVE (1) STANDING TO FORECLOSE THE REVERSE MORTGAGE, (2) DEFAULT AND (3) NOTICE WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT HEARSAY (FIRST DEPT). ​
Family Court Did Not Follow Statutory Procedure Before Ruling the New York Court Did Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction in a Proceeding to Modify a New Jersey Custody and Visitation Order—A Proceeding to Modify the Custody and Visitation Order Was Pending In New Jersey at the Time the New York Proceeding Was Brought
WHERE THE MINUTES OF A “QUALITY ASSURANCE” PEER-REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING ASSESSING THE MEDICAL TREATMENT AFFORDED A PATIENT DO NOT IDENTIFY THE SPEAKERS, THE PARTY-STATEMENT EXCEPTION TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW AND EDUCATION LAW PRIVILEGE APPLIES, MAKING ALL THE STATEMENTS BY UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKERS SUBJECT TO DISCOVERY BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S PRETRIAL SILENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REVIEWED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, MISCONDUCT ALONE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S PROOF THAT DEFENDANT SUPPLIED THE ALLEGEDLY DEFECTIVE WIRE MESH TO THE RETAILER IN THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION WAS SPECULATIVE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Statute of Limitations for Fraud Applies to Forgery​
Judge Properly Refused to Accept Defendant’s Plea to a Lesser Offense Because the Prosecutor Objected to the Plea Allocution as Insufficient

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

ABSENT A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DELAY, A MOTION TO SET ASIDE A VERDICT... AN ARBITRATOR’S DETERMINATION WILL NOT BE REVERSED BECAUSE OF AN ERROR...