You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS CONSTITUTED THE SOLE...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether plaintiff’s actions constituted the sole proximate cause of his injuries in this Labor Law 240(1) action. Plaintiff fell after he had stacked two Baker scaffolds and a closed a-frame ladder on top of one another to install sheetrock:

… [T]he defendant raised a triable issue of fact as to whether pipe scaffolds, which were available to the plaintiff, constituted adequate protection for the work that the plaintiff was performing and, if so, whether the plaintiff, based on his training, prior practice, and common sense, knew or should have known to use pipe scaffolds instead of Baker scaffolds … . The defendant also raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the scaffolds alone were adequate for the job, thereby negating any need for the plaintiff to place a closed ladder on top of the scaffolds … . Therefore, the defendant submitted evidence that would permit a jury to find that “the plaintiff had adequate safety devices available; that he knew both that they were available and that he was expected to use them; that he chose for no good reason not to do so; and that had he not made that choice he would not have been injured” … . Nalvarte v Long Is. Univ., 2017 NY Slip Op 06183, Second Dept 8-16-17

​

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION (SECOND DEPT))/SOLE PROXIMATE CASE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS CONSTITUTED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURIES IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
A MANAGING AGENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE MANAGED PROPERTY UNLESS THE MANAGING AGENT EXERCISES COMPLETE AND EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE OPERATION OF THE PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON (AIP) MUST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT AT GUARDIANSHIP PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYIGIENE LAW (SECOND DEPT).
THE LOFT BOARD PROPERLY REJECTED TENANTS’ REQUEST TO WITHDRAW THEIR APPLICATIONS FOR COVERAGE UNDER THE LOFT LAW FOLLOWING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE LANDLORD; HERE THE LANDLORD HELD COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WHICH INCLUDED THE TENANTS’ RESIDENCES IN THE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY; THE LANDLORD HAD SETTLED WITH THE TENANTS, AGREEING TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND CONVERT THE PROPERTY TO RENT STABILIZED RESIDENCES (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO THE CHARGES IN TWO INDICTMENTS, WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE INDICTMENTS, COUNSEL WHO NEGOTIATED THE PLEA OFFER HAD BEEN RELIEVED AS DEFENSE COUNSEL BECAUSE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A PASSENGER IN A STOPPED CAR HIT FROM BEHIND, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, WHETHER THE PLAINTIFF’S DRIVER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT NO LONGER PRECLUDES SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
​ WHEN THE FAILURE TO PRESENT FACTS IN A PRIOR MOTION IS NOT JUSTIFIED, THE SECOND MOTION DOES NOT FIT THE CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW OR AN ALLOWABLE SUCCESSIVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE CITY’S STUDIES OF THE INTERSECTION WHERE INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A CAR WERE DONE IN THE SUMMER WHEN NO SCHOOL CHILDREN USED THE INTERSECTION, THEREFORE THE CITY WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, THE STUDIES HAD CONCLUDED NO TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE WAS NECESSARY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS’ (ZBA’S) DENIAL OF A LOT-SIZE VARIANCE CONFLICTED WITH A PRIOR RULING BASED ON SIMILAR FACTS; THEREFORE THE ZBA WAS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A FACTUAL BASIS FOR ITS DECISION; THE DECISION, WHICH WAS SUPPORTED ONLY BY COMMUNITY OPPOSITION, WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (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

PLAINTIFF’S STEPPING ON AN UNSECURED PLANK HE HAD JUST PLACED, RATHER... RECORD OF A RETENTION HEARING FOR AN INSANITY ACQUITTEE NEED NOT BE SEALED ...