Firm Operations Continue Uninterrupted During the Coronavirus. Click for More Information ›
Gair, Gair, Conason, Rubinowitz, Bloom, Hershenhorn, Steigman & Mackauf is a New York Plaintiff's personal injury law firm specializing in automobile accidents, construction accidents, medical malpractice, products liability, police misconduct and all types of New York personal injury litigation.
Published on:

New York Construction Accident Law- Construction Worker Granted Summary Judgment on 240(1) Claim

In this New York construction accident the motion by plaintiff’s lawyers for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) claim was granted by The Court in Rich v West 31st St. Assoc., LLC, 2012 NY Slip Op 00734, Decided on February 2, 2012, Appellate Division, First Department.

Plaintiff, was injured while riding a hoist at a construction site. The hoist free fell into the sub-basement, coming to rest on the springs on the bottom of the hoist way. In affirming the granting of summary judgment The Court stated;

“The unrefuted evidence establishes that the hoist came to a stop only when it reached the emergency cushion springs located in the sub-basement, an event which does not constitute normal and safe operation of the hoist. The hoist mechanism proved inadequate to shield plaintiff from the harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity and thus summary judgment on plaintiff’s section 240(1) claim was properly granted (see Runner v New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 NY3d 599, 604 [2009]; Williams v 520 Madison Partnership, 38 AD3d 464 [2007]). Although the hoist’s safety mechanism engaged, and prevented plaintiff and his coworkers from suffering more serious injuries, this does not defeat plaintiff’s entitlement to summary judgment (see Lopez v Boston Props. Inc., 41 AD3d 259 [2007]; Kyle v City of New York, 268 AD2d 192 [2000], lv denied 97 NY2d 608 [2002]). Moreover, neither a lack of certainty as to exactly what preceded the accident nor the fact that plaintiff did not point to a specific defect in the hoist [*2]creates an issue of fact (see Arnaud v 140 Edgecomb LLC, 83 AD3d 507 [2011]).”

See our prior Post: New York Construction Accident Law: Gasques v. State of New York,What Does It Stand For?