You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SAFETY DEVICES FOR LIFTING HEAVY MOTOR WERE AVAILABLE,...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SAFETY DEVICES FOR LIFTING HEAVY MOTOR WERE AVAILABLE, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact whether safety devices were available precluded granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff was injured lifting a heavy motor onto a scissor lift. Defendant’s foreman testified he had never manually lifted a motor onto a scissors lift and safety devices for lifting the motor must have been available:

In support of the motion, plaintiffs submitted the deposition testimony of plaintiff set forth above, as well as that of his coworker and a foreman. Plaintiff’s coworker testified that he had performed work on 30 or 40 such doors and had manually lifted the motor onto a scissor lift every time. Conversely, the foreman, who was not on location on the date of the injury, testified that he had performed work on “over a thousand” such doors and had “never lifted a motor manually onto a scissor lift.” The foreman found it “hard to believe” that hoists, blocks, pulleys, ropes, or other safety devices were not available on site.

We conclude that plaintiffs failed to meet their initial burden on their motion inasmuch as their evidentiary submissions created issues of fact whether plaintiff’s “injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential” … . Smiley v Allgaier Constr. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 04130, Fourth Dept 6-8-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SAFETY DEVICES FOR LIFTING HEAVY MOTOR WERE AVAILABLE, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
MATTER SENT BACK FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE PEOPLE PRESENTED NEW EVIDENCE TO THE SECOND GRAND JURY AFTER A ‘NO BILL,’ THE PEOPLE WERE GRANTED PERMISSION TO RE-PRESENT ON THE GROUND THAT NEW EVIDENCE WAS AVAILABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S LETTER REQUESTING A PLEA-BARGAIN CONFERENCE WAS NOT A WAIVER OF DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS.
A PRIOR RULING IN A PRIOR ACTION FINDING THAT THE WITHHELD DOCUMENTS WERE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE DID NOT INDICATE THE SPECIFIC PRIVILEGE WHICH APPLIED TO EACH DOCUMENT; THEREFORE THE PRIOR RULING DID NOT TRIGGER THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE AND THE DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS MUST BE DETERMINED ANEW IN THE INSTANT ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
CONTRARY TO SUPREME COURT’S RULING, THE PURCHASE CONTRACT DID NOT INCLUDE A CLAUSE LIMITING PLAINTIFF’S REMEDY FOR A BREACH TO RETAINING THE DEPOSIT (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LADDER WAS DEFECTIVE AND WHETHER ADDITIONAL SAFETY DEVICES WERE REQUIRED, SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED.
TRIAL COURT DID NOT, AS PROMISED, INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE PURPOSES OF INTRODUCING HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF THE CHILD-VICTIM’S DISCLOSURES OF SEXUAL ASSAULT AND DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE ERROR WAS REVERSIBLE AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR NOT OBJECTING (FOURTH DEPT).
PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHOSE SON IS MARRIED TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXCUSED FOR CAUSE, PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT BY VICTIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED.
Absence of Information About the Source of Double Hearsay in the Search Warrant Application Required Suppression

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

BAD FAITH DISCLAIMER ACTION BROUGHT AFTER INJURED PLAINTIFFS WERE ASSIGNED THE... DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE...