NY Labor Law 240(1)

by

Last Friday the Appellate Division, Fourth Department issued a short but sweet (for plaintiffs) Labor Law § 240 (1) decision. In Signs v. Crawford, plaintiff sustained injuries at a construction site owned by defendant “when a metal plate that was being hoisted by a jib fell and caught plaintiff’s glove, causing him to fall from scaffolding.” The trial…

Read More Scaffold Fall Results in Summary Judgment for Plaintiff Under Labor Law § 240(1)
Share This:
by

Yesterday the Appellate Division, in Cuentas v. Sephora USA, affirmed a lower court ruling granting summary judgment to a construction worker plaintiff on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim.  While working on a 6-foot tall, A-frame ladder (example pictured), plaintiff lost his balance and fell, sustaining injuries. The standards for evaluating a Labor Law §…

Read More Summary Judgment For Plaintiff, Who Fell From Ladder, Under Labor Law § 240(1)
Share This:
by

In a decision issued on March 29, 2012, the Appellate Division, First Department, held in Ortega v. City of New York that, in a Labor Law § 240(1) case – here, arising from plaintiff’s use of a “tremie rack” (example pictured) – “a plaintiff is not required to demonstrate that the injury was foreseeable, except…

Read More Labor Law § 240(1) Does Not Require Plaintiff To Show That His Injury Was Foreseeable Except In Case Involving the Collapse of a Permanent Structure
Share This:
by

Salazar v. Novalex Contracting Corp., et al., 2011 NY Slip Op 08446 (Nov. 21, 2011) illustrates the “common sense approach” that must be employed when analyzing Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) claims. P and his fellow workmen were directed to pour and spread concrete over the floor of a basement which contained trenches into which…

Read More NY Court of Appeals Holds No Labor Law 240(1) or 241(6) Liability Where Protective Measure Would Have Been Inconsistent With Work
Share This:
by

In Wilinski v. 334 East 92nd Housing Development Fund Corp., 2011 NY Slip Op 07477 (Oct. 25, 2011), the New York Court of Appeals vitiated the so-called “same level” rule that had embedded itself in New York Labor Law § 240(1) jurisprudence, and construed a Labor Law § 241(6)-triggering regulation. P, who was engaged in the demolition of…

Read More Court of Appeals Repudiates Labor Law § 240(1) “Same Level” Precedent and Construes a Labor Law § 241(6)-Triggering Regulation
Share This: