You are here: / / PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION FELL FROM AN INVERTED BUCKET...

PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION FELL FROM AN INVERTED BUCKET HE WAS STANDING ON TO REACH A POWER CABLE; DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THERE WAS NO NEED FOR PLAINTIFF TO ELEVATE HIMSELF TO DO HIS JOB; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff fell off an inverted bucket when he was installing stacked washers and dryers. Defendant demonstrated plaintiff did not need to elevate himself to do the work:

According to the plaintiff, on the day at issue, he was standing on an inverted bucket in order to reach the power cable for the stacked washer dryer unit that he had just pushed into the closet before he had plugged in the power cable. The plaintiff contended that the power cable was resting on top of the dryer and was out of reach, and that the washer dryer unit, although on wheels, was difficult to move, so he stood on an inverted bucket to reach the power cable. The plaintiff alleged that the bucket slipped out from under him and he fell and was injured. …

… [T]he plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries because his conduct unnecessarily exposed him to an elevation-related risk … . The plaintiff’s deposition testimony … established that a ladder was not necessary for the plaintiff to do his work. The plaintiff testified that each of the stacked washer and dryer units that he was installing was on wheels and not secured within the closet in which they were being installed. … [P]rior to the incident, he had installed approximately 20 stacked washer and dryer units without using a ladder. … [W]ith respect to the unit he was installing on the day at issue, in order to reach the power cable, he could have moved the stacked washer and dryer out of the closet rather than stand on an inverted bucket, but he chose not to do so. Morales v 50 N. First Partners, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 04801, Second Dept 8-3-22

Practice Point: In this unusual Labor Law 240(1) action, the defendants demonstrated plaintiff did not need to stand on an inverted bucket to do his job. Therefore plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his fall (from the bucket) and defendants were entitled to summary judgment.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Proof of “Physical Injury” Legally Insufficient (Lacerated Finger)
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE WAS CLEANED OR INSPECTED DURING THE THREE DAYS PRIOR TO THE FALL, THEREFORE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT LACKED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDITION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
SCHOOL CUSTODIAN’S STATEMENT TO A TEACHER THAT ON THE DAY HE IS FIRED HE WILL COME IN AND ‘COLUMBINE THIS SHIT’ DID NOT CONSTITUTE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A TERRORISTIC THREAT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PENAL LAW, DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT AFTER A READING OF THE GRAND JURY MINUTES WAS PROPER.
A DEEDED EASEMENT CAN ONLY BE CREATED WHEN THE GRANTOR OWNS THE DOMINANT AND SERVIENT PROPERTY; HERE THE CRITERIA FOR A DEEDED EASEMENT WERE NOT MET; BUT THE CRITERIA FOR A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT WERE MET (SECOND DEPT).
BANK DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT OR COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
AMENDMENT TO STATUTE CHANGING THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR ACTION ON A PAYMENT BOND DID NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
A STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO DEFENDANT IN A POLICE REPORT TO THE EFFECT THAT PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE (SECOND 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

DEFENDANT PIZZA-DELIVERY DRIVER WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT... THE CITY HAD TIMELY KNOWLEDGE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT FROM AN ACCIDENT REPORT...