Source: http://www.frenchcasey.com/blog/archive/2013/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 21:03:21+00:00

Document:
In a recent Third Department case, the Court found triable issues of fact despite finding that plaintiff’s injuries were the result of his exposure to the risk of gravity while working with heavy materials that were hoisted above a roof’s surface where plaintiff was standing. See, Jackson v. Heitman Funds/191 Colonie, LLC, 111 A.D.3d 1208 (3rd Dept. 2013). Even though the Court found Runner v. New York Stock Exchange applicable, the Third Department found questions of fact as to whether the defendants failed to provide adequate protection and whether such failure proximately caused plaintiff’s injuries.
Mediations, arbitrations and other forms of alternative dispute resolution are becoming more widely used in various types of disputes. The back log of cases in most Courts, particularly in major metropolitan areas, have resulted in longer waiting times for jury trials. As anyone involved in litigation knows, a single case could take years to reach trial.
The 2nd Department recently reviewed Labor Law standards in Geronimo Estevez-Rivas v. W2001Z/15CPW Realty, LLC. Cite 2013 NY Slip Op 01800). Defendant Quick Park Central Park appealed the denial of its cross-motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff had also appealed the denial of his motion for filing summary judgment on his Labor Law §240(1) claim. The 2nd Department granted summary judgment to Quick Park and upheld a decision denying plaintiff’s summary judgment on his §240(1) claim.
In a recent case,Dos Santos v. Consolidated Edison of New York,104 A.D.3rd 606 (1st Dept. 2013), the First Department panel found that a manhole in a street was a structure, thereby allowing plaintiff to prevail in a Labor Law § 240(1) action.
In Rajkumar v. Markham Gardens LP, 2013 NY Slip Op 51581 (NY: Supreme Court 2013), Justice Jack Battaglia ruled that Labor Law § 240(1) does not apply where the imputus of an object falling at a construction site was not a direct consequence of gravity operating on the object. For example, in Rajkumar, plaintiff alleged that while he was helping to erect a balcony, he slipped and fell, and subsequently, the 200 pound beam he was holding fell on top of him. Immediately prior to the accident, plaintiff was holding the subject beam inches above his shoulders and standing on construction debris. Judge Battaglia of Kings County Supreme Court held that, because the beam fell as a result of plaintiff slipping, the accident was not within the narrow confines of the strict liability statute.
On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 Joe French addressed the Scaffold and Access Industry Association Region 2 meeting held in Flushing, Queens. Mr. French addressed Labor Law §240, the expansion of the law’s scope, how scaffolding sub-contractors can protect themselves, and the current state of attempts in Albany to modify the law’s absolute liability standard.
In Ware v. Atlantic Towers Apt. Corp. et al, 2013 N.Y. Slip. Op. 51177(U), Kings County Supreme Court’s Judge Battaglia struck a building owner and manager’s cross-claims against a third defendant, SLF, where the owner and manager failed to produce surveillance footage of the trip and fall accident claimed in the lawsuit, thus depriving SLF of key and incisive evidence in support of its defense.
2nd Dept. Gives Hope To Defendants In Labor Law §240(1) Case If Ladder Itself Is Not Defective.
The Second Department recently gave hope to some Labor Law §240 defendants in its decision in Hugo v. Sarantakos, 108 A.D.3d 744, 970 N.Y.S.2d 245 ( 2nd Dept. 2013).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §240
 §240
 v. 
 § 240
 v. 
 § 240
 §240
 v. 
 §240
 §240
 v.