You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE BOOM TRUCK WAS 700 FEET FROM WHERE IT WAS LOADED WHEN THE...

ALTHOUGH THE BOOM TRUCK WAS 700 FEET FROM WHERE IT WAS LOADED WHEN THE BOOM STRUCK AN OVERHEAD SIGN, THE TRUCK WAS AT THE WORK SITE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW, ALTHOUGH THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION ADDRESSED THE POSITION OF THE BOOM BUT NOT THE NATURE OF THE ACCIDENT, THE PROVISION WAS BROADLY WORDED AND RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION 1ST DEPT.

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over an extensive dissent, determined defendants should not have been awarded summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action. Plaintiffs were injured when the extended boom on a boom truck struck an overhead sign on a bridge as the truck was being driven away from where it was loaded. Supreme Court had found the accident did not occur at the work site so the Labor Law was not implicated. The First Department held that the truck, which was 700 feet from where it was loaded when the boom struck the sign, was at the work site within the meaning of the Labor Law. The court further found that an Industrial Code provision which related to the position of the boom, but not to the precise facts of the accident, raised a question of fact sufficient to allow the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action to proceed:

At this stage, … an issue of fact exists as to whether defendants violated section 23-8.2(d)(3) of the Industrial Code, pertaining to “[m]obile crane travel,” which provides that “[a] mobile crane, with or without load, shall not travel with the boom so high that it may bounce back over the cab”… . … Defendants complain that there was no evidence that the boom bounced back over the cab. However, the regulation is violated when a mobile crane has “the boom so high that it may bounce back over the cab” … . Even assuming defendants are correct, the boom was high enough to strike a gantry sign. We reject the dissent’s argument that the regulation was not implicated because plaintiffs were not injured by the boom bouncing over the cab, but rather, when the boom hit the road sign. ​James v Alpha Painting & Constr. Co., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05692, 1st Dept 7-18-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (ALTHOUGH THE BOOM TRUCK WAS 700 FEET FROM WHERE IT WAS LOADED WHEN THE BOOM STRUCK AN OVERHEAD SIGN, THE TRUCK WAS AT THE WORK SITE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW, ALTHOUGH THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION ADDRESSED THE POSITION OF THE BOOM BUT NOT THE NATURE OF THE ACCIDENT, THE PROVISION WAS BROADLY WORDED AND RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION 1ST DEPT)

You might also like
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE ORAL CONTRACT WAS ENFORCEABLE EVEN IF THE TRIGGERING EVENT OCCURRED AFTER A YEAR, THE CONTRACT WAS WITHIN THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS AND THEREFORE MUST IN BE WRITING (FIRST DEPT).
ADOPTION OF CHILD BORN TO A SURROGATE WHILE THE PARTNERS WERE LEGALLY MARRIED UNDER BRITISH LAW WAS PROPERLY VACATED, DURING THE ADOPTION PROCEEDINGS THE COURT WAS MISINFORMED ABOUT ONE OF THE PARTNER’S INVOLVEMENT WITH THE CHILD (FIRST DEPT).
THE PROBATION CONDITION PROHIBITING DEFENDANT FROM USING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WAS NOT WARRANTED BY THE UNDERLYING CONVICTION; THE ISSUE NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL AND SURVIVES A WAIVER OF APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CIVIL CONSPIRACY IN NEW YORK, THE ELEMENTS OF CONSPIRACY, INCLUDING OVERT ACTS, WERE PROPERLY PLED AS PART OF THE FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​
Supreme Court Abused Its Discretion by Vacating a Judgment Which Was Not Appealed by the Defendant
Rights of Adopted Children.
ABUTTING LANDOWNER DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE THE SIGN POST STUMP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED ON THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE SIDEWALK, NO COMPLAINTS OR VIOLATIONS, LANDOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
APPELLANT, WHO HAD PUT UP HER OWN MONEY FOR DEFENDANT’S BAIL, WAS ENTITLED TO REMISSION OF THE BAIL FORFEITED WHEN DEFENDANT MISSED HIS COURT DATE; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE AFFIDAVITS AND PSYCHIATRIST’S LETTER EXPLAINING THE MENTAL-HEALTH-RELATED REASONS FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR (FIRST 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

A CLAUSE IN AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT PURPORTING TO WAIVE THE RIGHT TO BRING A... CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A DOG BITE AT CITY ANIMAL SHELTER 2ND DEPT.