Falling From a Scaffold in New York Can Be a Triable Issue of Fact Under Labor Law § 240

Marshall Dennehey
Contact

Arizaga v. Lex Gardens II TP4 Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 78 Misc. 3d 1216(A), 185 N.Y.S.3d 646 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)

The plaintiff, a carpenter, was performing work on a scaffold when the planks of the scaffold lifted up, causing him to lose his balance and fall off of the scaffold. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment against the owner and the general contractor, claiming a New York Labor Law § 240 violation. He argued that the planks of the scaffold were inadequately secured, which caused his fall off of the scaffold.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff fell only two feet and fell toward the lateral side of the scaffold. The plaintiff argued that he had testified that it was five-foot fall off of the scaffold into the metal scaffold assembly.

The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because there was a triable issue of fact as to whether his fall was caused by a height differential as contemplated by New York Labor Law § 240.

This case demonstrates that a construction worker’s fall off of a scaffold does not always equate to being victorious on a motion for summary judgment involving a New York Labor Law § 240 claim.

Written by:

Marshall Dennehey
Contact
more
less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

  • Increased visibility
  • Actionable analytics
  • Ongoing guidance

Marshall Dennehey on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide