You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S STEPPING ON AN UNSECURED PLANK HE HAD JUST PLACED, RATHER...

PLAINTIFF’S STEPPING ON AN UNSECURED PLANK HE HAD JUST PLACED, RATHER THAN AN AVAILABLE SECURED PLANK, CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, DEFENDANTS’ PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was constructing a scaffold floor by laying planks. He fell when he stepped on an unsecured plank he had just put down, instead of an available secured plank. Therefore plaintiff’s action was the sole proximate cause of his fall:

To succeed on a cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must demonstrate that there was a violation of the statute and that the violation was a proximate cause of the accident … . Where the plaintiff is the sole proximate cause of his or her own injuries, there can be no recovery under Labor Law § 240(1)… . Here, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action by demonstrating that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident that caused his alleged injuries, since he chose to step upon an unsecured plank that he had just seconds before placed on a narrow steel beam, rather than standing upon the secured planking available to him, which he had used in the minutes leading up to the accident. Melendez v 778 Park Ave. Bldg. Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 06175, Second Dept 8-16-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE, PLAINTIFF’S STEPPING ON AN UNSECURED PLANK HE HAD JUST PLACED, RATHER THAN AN AVAILABLE SECURED PLANK, CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, DEFENDANTS’ PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF’S STEPPING ON AN UNSECURED PLANK HE HAD JUST PLACED, RATHER THAN AN AVAILABLE SECURED PLANK, CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, DEFENDANTS’ PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLEAD WITH AN AMENDED COMPLAINT ALLEGING DEFENDANTS’ PLANTING AND WATERING ON DEFENDANTS’ SIDE OF PLAINTIFFS’ RETAINING WALL CONSTITUTED NEGLIGENCE, TRESPASS AND A PRIVATE NUISANCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT
IN THE CONTEXT OF AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED THE ULTIMATE RELIEF SOUGHT; THE CRITERIA FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WERE NOT MET (SECOND DEPT).
THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT VERIFIED PROPERLY OVERLOOKED (SECOND DEPT).
VERDICT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE WAS NOT AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE THAT THE DOG BIT PLAINTIFF’S FACE WHILE ATTEMPTING TO BITE THE FOOD IN PLAINTIFF’S HAND AND EVIDENCE THAT THE DOG ONLY BECAME RAMBUNCTIOUS AROUND FOOD SUPPORTED THE JURY’S CONCLUSION THAT THE DOG HAD NOT EXHIBITED VICIOUS PROPENSITIES (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING AN ACTION TO VACATE THE ADOPTION OF HER CHILD BY HER FORMER HUSBAND PURSUANT TO THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT (ICWA) BECAUSE THE ACT ONLY APPLIES TO CHILDREN REMOVED FROM A PARENT’S CUSTODY (SECOND DEPT).
RULES OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CONCERNING THE CONTENTS OF AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY BANK ATTORNEYS IN FORECLOSURE ACTIONS DID NOT EXCEED RULEMAKING POWERS AND MUST BE FOLLOWED.
A DEFENDANT WHO PLEADS GUILTY FORFEITS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THE DENIAL OF A SPEEDY TRIAL MOTION; HERE, BECAUSE THE COURT ERRONEOUSLY TOLD DEFENDANT HE WOULD BE ABLE TO APPEAL, THE DEFENDANT MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE FAMILY COURT ACT AND PENAL LAW REQUIREMENTS IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, PETITION DISMISSED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CONSTRUCTION MANAGER DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT CONTROL TO BE LIABLE UNDER... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE...