You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS IN THE ELEVATOR SHAFT WHEN THE ELEVATOR,...

PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS IN THE ELEVATOR SHAFT WHEN THE ELEVATOR, OPERATING NORMALLY, DESCENDED AND CRUSHED HIM; THE ELEVATOR WAS NOT A “FALLING OBJECT” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1); COMPLAINT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the elevator which descended and crushed plaintiff’s decedent, who had entered the shaft, was not a “falling object” within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1). Therefore the complaint against defendants must be dismissed:

Plaintiff’s decedent, an elevator mechanic, entered an elevator shaft on the lobby level, under an elevator that he had sent to one of the floors above. After the shaft doors closed, the call button was pressed, and the elevator descended to the lobby, crushing the decedent. The parties agree that the elevator was working normally, in the “automatic” setting, at the time of the accident.

The Labor Law § 240(1) claim must be dismissed because the elevator did not “fall” as a result of the force of gravity but descended in automatic mode, as it was designed to do … . Luna v Brodcom W. Dev. Co. LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 02873, First Dept 4-28-22

​Practice Point: In order to be covered under Labor Law 240(1), this elevator accident must have been the result of the elevator “falling.” Because the elevator was descending normally when it struck and killed plaintiff, the complaint was dismissed.

 

You might also like
BY JOINING IN A PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT EXTENDED ITS TIME TO ANSWER UNTIL TEN DAYS AFTER NOTICE OF ENTRY OF THE ORDER DECIDING THE MOTION TO DISMISS, SINCE DEFENDANT WAS NOT IN DEFAULT, IT COULD APPEAL THE ORDER FINDING IT IN DEFAULT (FIRST DEPT). ​
TENANTS’ CAUSES OF ACTION FOR TENANT (STATUTORY) HARASSMENT, PRIVATE NUISANCE, ASSAULT, BREACH OF THE WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY, AS WELL AS THE CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL GOING DOWN PERMANENT STEPS AFTER HE STEPPED OFF THE LADDER; THERE WAS NO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1)—NO FAILURE OR ABSENCE OF A SAFETY DEVICE (FIRST DEPT).
THE LANGUAGE OF THE POLICY IS NOT AMBIGUOUS AND CAN NOT BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THE POLICY COVERED A PREMISES AT WHICH THE INSURED DID NOT RESIDE (FIRST DEPT).
THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS LANDLORD-TENANT ACTION WAS NOT INVALIDATED BY A CHANGE IN THE LAW BASED UPON A COURT OF APPEALS DECISION ISSUED A MONTH AFTER THE STIPULATION; A “MISTAKE OF LAW” DOES NOT INVALIDATE A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEFENDANT ESTATE TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY OR BE DEEMED IN DEFAULT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; WHERE THERE ARE CLAIMS AGAINST AN ESTATE, THE ESTATE CANNOT REPRESENT ITSELF (FIRST DEPT).
FOOTAGE FROM A POLICE OFFICER’S BODY-WORN CAMERA IS NOT A PERSONNEL RECORD AND THEREFORE IS NOT PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE BY CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 50-a (FIRST DEPT).
Intentional Assault Did Not Sever Causal Connection to Serving Alcohol.

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

PLAINTIFF’S FALLING INTO A HOLE ON THE PREMISES AFTER HIS TRUCK WAS LOADED... A CORPORATE OFFICER OR SHAREHOLDER CANNOT BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR NONFEASANCE...