Summary
The court reversed an order granting the plaintiff partial summary judgment and denied his Labor Law § 240(1) claim while granting defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. It held that the plaintiff’s injury, sustained while operating and attempting to climb a cement-mixing truck, did not arise from an elevation-related risk warranting the statute’s protections.
Holdings
- Labor Law § 240(1) did not apply because plaintiff was not exposed to an elevation-related risk and his injury did not directly flow from the application of gravity's force to an object.
- Defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action, and plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability was properly denied.
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff's injury arose from an elevation-related risk covered by Labor Law § 240(1).
- Whether plaintiff was entitled to partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1).
- Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) claim.
Disposition
reversed
Cases Cited (9)
- Harris v. City of New York, 83 A.D.3d 104, 108 (1st Dep't 2011)(followed)
- Salazar v. Novalex Contr. Corp., 18 N.Y.3d 134, 140 (2011)(followed)
- Melo v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 92 N.Y.2d 909, 911 (1998)(followed)
- Runner v. New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 N.Y.3d 599, 603-04 (2009)(applied)
- Toefer v. Long Island R.R., 4 N.Y.3d 399, 407-08 (2005)(followed)
- Medina v. City of New York, 87 A.D.3d 907, 909 (1st Dep't 2011)(followed)
- Berg v. Albany Ladder Co., Inc., 10 N.Y.3d 902, 904 (2008)(followed)
- D'Alto v. 22-24 129th St., LLC, 76 A.D.3d 503, 506 (2d Dep't 2010)(distinguished)
- Wilinski v. 334 E. 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 18 N.Y.3d 1, 5 (2011)(distinguished)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…