You are here: / Labor Law-Construction Law

PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ATTEMPTING TO EMPTY A 300 POUND BIN INTO A DUMPSTER, FIVE TO SEVEN FOOT HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL NOT DE MINIMUS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) action was properly granted. Plaintiff was attempting to lift a 300-pound laundry bin to empty debris into a dumpster. There were no safety devices and the five-to-seven foot height differential was not de minimus. Miller v 177 Ninth Ave. Condominium, 2018 NY Slip Op 00905, First Dept 2-8-18

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ATTEMPTING TO EMPTY A 300 POUND BIN INTO A DUMPSTER, FIVE TO SEVEN FOOT HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL NOT DE MINIMUS (FIRST DEPT))

PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE DID NOT CHECK THE POSITION OR LOCKING MECHANISM OF THE A-FRAME LADDER HE FELL FROM, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice well-reasoned dissent, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) action should not have been granted. Plaintiff was injured when he fell from the A-frame ladder. Plaintiff testified that he might not have checked the positioning of the ladder or the locking mechanism:

​

We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). “In order to establish his entitlement to judgment on liability as a matter of law, plaintiff was required to show that the statute was violated and the violation proximately caused his injury’ “… . Plaintiff did not know why the ladder wobbled or shifted, and he acknowledged that he might not have checked the positioning of the ladder or the locking mechanism, despite having been aware of the need to do so. We thus conclude that plaintiff failed to meet his initial burden on the motion. “[T]here is a plausible view of the evidence—enough to raise a fact question—that there was no statutory violation and that plaintiff’s own acts or omissions were the sole cause of the accident” … .

​

From the dissent: The fact that plaintiff could not identify why the ladder shifted does not undermine his entitlement to partial summary judgment because a plaintiff who falls from a ladder that “malfunction[s] for no apparent reason” is entitled to “a presumption that the ladder . . . was not good enough to afford proper protection” … . Although plaintiff testified at his deposition that he did not recall whether he checked the positioning of the ladder or checked that it was “locked into place,” he also testified that the ladder was upright and “fully open” near the middle of a small room, and we conclude that it would be unduly speculative for a jury to infer from plaintiff’s testimony that the sole proximate cause of the accident was his alleged failure to check its positioning or its locking mechanism … . Bonczar v American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00712, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE DID NOT CHECK THE POSITION OR LOCKING MECHANISM OF THE A-FRAME LADDER HE FELL FROM, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE DID NOT CHECK THE POSITION OR LOCKING MECHANISM OF THE A-FRAME LADDER HE FELL FROM, PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT))

,

THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE RELEVANT WORK, HOWEVER THE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON THE CREATION AND NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department determined the Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200 causes of action were properly dismissed, but the common law negligence cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff, a funeral director, was inspecting a grave which had been covered with plywood when he stepped on the plywood and fell into the grave. The Labor Law causes of action did not apply because plaintiff was not engaged in any relevant work at the time of the fall. However there were questions of fact whether defendants created or had notice of a dangerous condition:

​

With respect to Labor Law § 240 (1), defendants met their burden of establishing as a matter of law that plaintiff “was neither among the class of workers . . . nor performing the type of work . . . that Labor Law § 240 (1) is intended to protect” … , and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact… . Defendants further established that plaintiff was not entitled to the protection of Labor Law § 241 (6) inasmuch as his inspection of the grave site in his capacity as a funeral director had no direct connection with the alteration or excavation work … , and plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Finally, the court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim because, while that statute is not limited to construction work … , it does not apply where, as here, the plaintiff was “not permitted or suffered to work on a building or structure at the accident site” … .

​

… [D]efendants “were required to establish as a matter of law that they did not exercise any supervisory control over the general condition of the premises or that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition on the premises”… . Defendants’ own submissions establish that each had some level of supervisory control over the premises. Moreover, it is undisputed that [defendant] Wolcott dug the grave and placed plywood over it, thus creating and having actual notice of the condition that plaintiffs allege was dangerous. Further, while [defendant] Oakwood established that it did not create the dangerous condition, it “failed to establish as a matter of law that the condition was not visible and apparent or that it had not existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit [Oakwood] or [its] employees to discover and remedy it,” and it thereby failed to establish that it lacked constructive notice of it … . Solecki v Oakwood Cemetery Assn., 2018 NY Slip Op 00692, Fourth Dept 2-2-18

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE RELEVANT WORK, HOWEVER THE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON THE CREATION AND/OR NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE RELEVANT WORK, HOWEVER THE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON THE CREATION AND/OR NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE RELEVANT WORK, HOWEVER THE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON THE CREATION AND/OR NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FOURTH DEPT))

,

NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW 200 CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS ELECTROCUTION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, NO CODE VIOLATIONS, DEFENDANTS NEVER NOTIFIED THE TRANSFORMERS IN THE ELEVATOR CONTROL ROOM CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined the negligence and Labor Law 200 causes of action based upon allegations of “poor lighting” and the failure to provide a cover to protect against electrocution should have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s decedent was an elevator mechanic who was electrocuted when he came into contact with a transformer in the elevator control room. There were no witnesses to the accident. Plaintiffs did not allege the level of lighting constituted a code violation. The absence of a cover over the transformer did not violate any applicable code and defendants were never notified of a problem with the transformers, which had been routinely inspected:

​

With regard to the issue of whether defendants caused or created a hazardous condition, there is no dispute that [defendants] not design or manufacture the elevator control cabinet, or any of its electrical components, including the transformers … .

​

As to whether defendants had notice of the alleged dangerous condition … the building’s property manager… testified that he was never informed that there was any problem with the elevator control cabinet or that the transformers lacked a proper cover either by the DOB or by United despite the fact that both DOB (NYC Department of Buildings) and [the defendant elevator consultant service] conducted inspections of the ninth floor motor room. [The consultant-service president] testified that a cover was not required on the transformers because the transformers were in an enclosed cabinet. …

​

Even if the elevator control cabinet did not comply with the [American National Standards Institute (ANSI)] standard because the transformers did not have a cover, plaintiffs have failed to establish that defendants were required by law to comply with the … ANSI standard. Indeed, the … ANSI standard has not been adopted by or incorporated into New York City’s elevator code and ANSI itself is not a statute, ordinance or regulation. Thus, a violation thereof is not evidence of negligence … . Bradley v HWA 1290 III LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00516, First Dept 1-30-18

NEGLIGENCE (LABOR LAW 200, ELECTROCUTION, NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW 200 CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS ELECTROCUTION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, NO CODE VIOLATIONS, DEFENDANTS NEVER NOTIFIED THE TRANSFORMERS IN THE ELEVATOR CONTROL ROOM CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FIRST DEPT))/LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (LABOR LAW 200, ELECTROCUTION, NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW 200 CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS ELECTROCUTION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, NO CODE VIOLATIONS, DEFENDANTS NEVER NOTIFIED THE TRANSFORMERS IN THE ELEVATOR CONTROL ROOM CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FIRST DEPT))/AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE (ANSI)  (LABOR LAW 200, ELECTROCUTION, NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW 200 CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS ELECTROCUTION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, NO CODE VIOLATIONS, DEFENDANTS NEVER NOTIFIED THE TRANSFORMERS IN THE ELEVATOR CONTROL ROOM CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION, VIOLATION OF AN ANSI STANDARD IS NOT EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT))/LIGHTING (LABOR LAW 200, ELECTROCUTION, NEGLIGENCE AND LABOR LAW 200 CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS ELECTROCUTION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, NO CODE VIOLATIONS CONCERNING THE ALLEGEDLY INADEQUATE LIGHTING ALLEGED, DEFENDANTS NEVER NOTIFIED THE TRANSFORMERS IN THE ELEVATOR CONTROL ROOM CONSTITUTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION (FIRST DEPT))

PLAINTIFF PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, HEAVY TRANSFORMER SHIFTED DOWNWARD STRIKING PLAINTIFF, NO SAFETY DEVICES PROVIDED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) action. Plaintiff was on a ladder working on a heavy suspended transformer when it shifted and struck him. Plaintiff demonstrated he was not provided with any adequate safety devices, and defendants did not demonstrate adequate safety devices were available:

​

Plaintiff established prima facie his entitlement to the protections of Labor Law § 240(1) by submitting evidence that he was injured when a corner of an electrical transformer weighing hundreds of pounds and suspended from a ceiling shifted downward and struck him on the head as he was standing on a ladder working on it and that he had not been provided with any safety devices adequate to his task… .

​

In opposition, defendants failed to raise an issue of fact as to their contention that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident. Plaintiff’s coworker testified that there were no readily available safety devices to assist him and plaintiff in their task… . While plaintiff’s foreman testified that he had given specific instructions to his workers about using wooden delivery pallets to prop up the transformer at the corner being worked on, he conceded that he did not know whether plaintiff was standing near enough to him to have heard these instructions … . In any event, defendants submitted no evidence that this improvised method was a suitable safety device … . Gericitano v Brookfield Props. OLP Co. LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00480, First Dept 1-25-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, HEAVY TRANSFORMER SHIFTED DOWNWARD STRIKING PLAINTIFF, NO SAFETY DEVICES PROVIDED (FIRST DEPT))/FALLING OBJECTS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, HEAVY TRANSFORMER SHIFTED DOWNWARD STRIKING PLAINTIFF, NO SAFETY DEVICES PROVIDED (FIRST DEPT))

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 241 (6) action should not have been granted because there was a question of fact about plaintiff’s comparative negligence:

​

Plaintiff’s testimony that he slipped on water on the floor of the stairwell where he was working establishes prima facie a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.7(d) (“Slipping hazards”). In opposition, defendant, relying solely on speculative hearsay testimony (by another employee), failed to raise an issue of fact as to the way the accident occurred … .

While the record demonstrates defendant’s liability as a matter of law, an issue of fact exists as to negligence on plaintiff’s part … ,which could result in an apportionment of liability … . Plaintiff testified that, as he entered the stairwell, he was looking up to determine the location of the box through which he was to run cable, and that, while carrying a ladder in one hand, he attempted to descend the staircase without looking at the stairs or the landing in front of him. Luciano v New York City Hous. Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 00473, First Dept 1-25-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO LABOR LAW 241(6) APPLIED, NO EVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS SUPERVISED PLAINTIFF’S WORK, HOMEOWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the homeowner’s exemption from Labor Law 241(6) applied and the complaint was properly dismissed. The fact that the homeowner had worked in the construction field and had excess insurance coverage did not raise a question of fact whether the homeowner supervised plaintiff’s work:

​

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly found that the statutory exemption contained in Labor Law § 241(6) applied to the [defendants]. Labor Law § 241(6) exempts from liability “owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work” … . The phrase “direct or control” is “construed strictly and refers to the situation where the owner supervises the method and manner of the work” … .

Here, it is undisputed that the [defendants’] house was a one-family dwelling. Moreover, the [defendants] established, prima facie, that they did not direct or control the work … . In opposition … , the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Given the lack of evidence that the [defendants] supervised the method and manner of the work, the limited evidence that [the defendant husband] may have previously worked in the construction industry and that the [defendants] had excess insurance coverage does not create a triable issue of fact … . Hicks v Aibani, 2018 NY Slip Op 00413, Second Dept 1-24-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO LABOR LAW 241(6) APPLIED, NO EVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS SUPERVISED PLAINTIFF’S WORK, HOMEOWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO LABOR LAW 241(6) APPLIED, NO EVIDENCE HOMEOWNERS SUPERVISED PLAINTIFF’S WORK, HOMEOWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

PLANKS AND CRIBBING COVERING AN OPENING WERE SAFETY DEVICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), FAILURE TO SECURE THE CRIBBING WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) action was properly denied. Plaintiff was attempting to remove planks covering an opening over an elevator shaft. His foot slipped on oil and he was injured trying to maintain control of a blank. Cribbing under the planks should have been secured but was not. The court held that the planks and cribbing were safety devices within the meaning of the Labor Law. And even if slipping on the oil was a proximate cause of the injury, there can be more than one proximate cause:

​

… [T]he cribbing and planking together constituted a safety device designed to protect the workers on the project from falling into the opening in the construction floor … . Further, it is undisputed that the cribbing was not secured at the time of plaintiff’s accident, which allowed the plank plaintiff was holding to fall into the opening, dragging plaintiff toward the opening, causing his injuries.

To the extent defendants assert that they cannot be held liable under Labor Law § 240(1), on the ground that plaintiff’s accident was not caused by the inadequacy of a safety device but rather by him slipping on an oily substance, this does not support granting summary judgment to the defendants. Although plaintiff testified that he slipped due to the oily substance on the floor, the safety device comprised of the cribbing and planking, which was installed to prevent workers from falling into the opening in the floor, could be found by a trier of fact to be a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Even if the oily substance on the floor was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s accident, “[t]here may be more than one proximate cause of a workplace accident” … . Wiscovitch v Lend Lease (U.S.) Constr. LMB Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00350, First Dept 1-18-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLANKS AND CRIBBING COVERING AN OPENING WERE SAFETY DEVICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), FAILURE TO SECURE THE CRIBBING WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (FIRST DEPT))/SAFETY DEVICES (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, , PLANKS AND CRIBBING COVERING AN OPENING WERE SAFETY DEVICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), FAILURE TO SECURE THE CRIBBING WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (FIRST DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, DEFENDANTS GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND LESSEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff should have been granted summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action, the general contractor’s (PWI’s) and lessee’s (St. John’s) motions for summary judgment should have been denied, and the out-of-possession landlord’s (Rolex’s) motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Plaintiff was injured moving a 600 pound I-beam down some stairs and alleged there was debris on the steps, there was no handrail, and the lighting was dim:

 

The Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims were incorrectly dismissed as against PWI and St. John. To the extent plaintiff’s claim is based on allegations that his fall was due to the defective condition of the premises (including the presence of debris on the staircase, inadequate lighting, and the lack of a handrail), defendants can be held liable for plaintiff’s injuries only if they created or had notice of the dangerous conditions on the premises … . … [P]laintiff raised an issue of fact through his testimony that there was debris in the form of chopped concrete, pieces of wire, and trim studs on the steps, that there was no handrail, and that the lighting was dim. …

​

The record demonstrates that Rolex, an out-of-possession landlord with a right of re-entry to maintain and repair, was not involved with the project and was not on site and thus that it had no actual notice of the dangerous conditions … . The record demonstrates further that Rolex cannot be held liable under a theory of constructive notice because the dangerous conditions did not constitute significant structural or design defects that violated specific safety statutes … .

​

Finally, defendants were not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the claim under Labor Law § 240(1), and plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment as to liability on that claim. The record establishes a failure to provide plaintiff and his coworker with devices offering adequate protection against the gravity-related risks of moving an extremely heavy object down a staircase, leading to the workers’ loss of control over the object’s descent and plaintiff’s injuries … . Dirschneider v Rolex Realty Co. LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00253,  First Dept 1-16-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, DEFENDANTS GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND LESSEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANT OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, DEFENDANT OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 200 ACTION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT))

,

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE FACT THAT THERE WERE NO WITNESSES DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff was standing on top of a sidewalk shed as he loaded sheetrock into a building when the shed broke. The fact that there were no witnesses did not raise a question of fact:

Plaintiff Pedro Serrano was injured when, during the course of moving sheetrock into a building, he stood on top of a sidewalk shed that broke beneath him, causing him to fall to the sidewalk below. While the motion court correctly determined that these facts demonstrated plaintiffs' prima facie entitlement to summary judgment … , it erred in finding that EAS [defendant] raised a triable issue of fact. That no witness other than plaintiff testified as to the occurrence of the accident does not bar judgment in his favor, “where nothing in the record contradicts his version of the occurrence or raises an issue as to his credibility” … , and defendant EAS's expert report was purely speculative in that it was not based on an examination of the sidewalk shed at the time of the accident … . Serrano v TED Gen. Contr., 2018 NY Slip Op 00113, First Dept 1-9-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE FACT THAT THERE WERE NO WITNESSES DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTIVE LAW, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE FACT THAT THERE WERE NO WITNESSES DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (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