• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
(914) 220-1086

Law Offices of Thomas L. Gallivan, PLLC

Just another WordPress site

  • Home
  • About
    • Attorney Profiles
      • Daniel F. Gallivan
      • Thomas L. Gallivan
      • James C. Freeman
      • Andrew J. Gilbride
    • Testimonials
  • Practice Areas
    • Personal Injury
      • Car Accident Lawyers
      • Pedestrian Accident Lawyers
      • Slip & Fall Lawyers
      • Truck Accident Lawyers
      • Wrongful Death Lawyers
      • Motorcycle Accident Lawyers
    • Nursing Home Abuse
    • Criminal Defense
    • Medical Malpractice
  • Blog
  • Resources
    • Videos
    • Notable Cases
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • About
    • Attorney Profiles
      • Daniel F. Gallivan
      • Thomas L. Gallivan
      • James C. Freeman
      • Andrew J. Gilbride
    • Testimonials
  • Practice Areas
    • Personal Injury
      • Car Accident Lawyers
      • Pedestrian Accident Lawyers
      • Slip & Fall Lawyers
      • Truck Accident Lawyers
      • Wrongful Death Lawyers
      • Motorcycle Accident Lawyers
    • Nursing Home Abuse
    • Criminal Defense
    • Medical Malpractice
  • Blog
  • Resources
    • Videos
    • Notable Cases
  • Contact Us
Call
Contact
Blog
Home  /  Personal Injury Law  /  Appellate Court Allows Case to Proceed Where Defendant Owner Allegedly Failed to Provide Protective Gear on Construction Site

Appellate Court Allows Case to Proceed Where Defendant Owner Allegedly Failed to Provide Protective Gear on Construction Site

by Law Offices of Thomas L. Gallivan, PLLC 01 Jan2016

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department in Montenegro v P12, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 05919 [130 AD3d 695] reversed a lower court’s decision granting a defendant’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss a cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6), predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(a).

The plaintiff was employed as a carpenter on a renovation project at premises owned by the defendant.  The plaintiff was injured while using a pneumatic nail gun to attach molding around a window.  He was struck in the eye with a nail and sustained injuries to the eye.

As a result, the plaintiff commenced a suit against the defendant alleging negligence and violation of Labor Law § 241(6).  He further alleged that the defendant failed to provide adequate eye protection while using the nail gun.

According to New York Labor Law § 241(6), all areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed, must be operated in such a manner as to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to all individuals employed or lawfully present in such areas.  The plaintiff contended that the defendant violated this provision because he was not given proper protective gear while working in the construction zone.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss denying the allegations that the defendant failed to provide protective gear in a construction area; the Supreme Court granted the motion in its entirety.  The plaintiff appealed the Supreme Court’s decision stating that triable issues of fact existed—thus, the court made an error in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

In order for a defendant to successfully win on a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a cause of action, the defendant must prove that there are no triable issues of fact to merit further litigation on the cause of action.  Here, the plaintiff argued that a triable issue of fact existed and that the defendant’s motion failed to establish whether, at the time of the plaintiff’s injury, the plaintiff was engaged in work that “may endanger the eyes,” to require the use of eye protection required by 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(a).

Under New York Labor Labor Law, Part 23, Protection in Construction, Demolition, and Excavation Operations, New York State requires that appropriate eye protection be provided to individuals and must be used by all persons while employed in welding, burning or cutting operations or in chipping, cutting or grinding any material from which particles may fly, or while engaged in any other operation which may endanger the eyes. 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(a).  The plaintiff alleges that at the time of plaintiff’s injury, he was not given any protective gear, thus violating 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(a) of New York Labor Law.

Although the defendant tried to prove that they had not violated the statute, the Appellate Division held that defendant did not meet its burden to prove that no triable issues of fact existed.  For example, the court held that there still was a question as to whether the plaintiff’s use of the nail gun at the time of the accident made the possibility of injury to the plaintiff’s eye foreseeable as to require eye protection.  Further, the defendant also failed to address whether approved eye protection was ever provided on the date of the accident while the plaintiff was engaged in his work.

Therefore, the defendant did not establish a showing of entitlement to a judgment as a matter of law, which merited dismissal of plaintiff’s claim.  Accordingly, the Appellate Division denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and reversed the lower court’s order.

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_05919.htm

Posted in: Personal Injury Law, Bodily Injury, Construction Accidents, Municipal Liability, Negligent Supervision

Primary Sidebar

Get In Touch

Practice Areas

Personal Injury

  • Wrongful Death
  • Motor Vehicle Accidents
  • Trucking Accidents
  • Pedestrian Accidents
  • Construction Accidents
  • Scaffolding Accidents
  • Slip, Trip & Falls (Premises Liability)
  • Negligent Supervision at a School or Day Care
  • Sidewalk Falls
  • Elevator Accidents
  • Train and Subway Accidents

Nursing Home Neglect & Abuse

  • Bedsores (Pressure Ulcers)
  • Falls & Fractures
  • Malnutrition and Dehydration
  • Physical and Sexual Abuse
  • Wandering & Elopement
  • Unexplained Bruises and Cuts
  • Infection
  • Choking Incidents
  • Medication Errors
  • Group Homes
  • Assisted Living Facilities

Criminal/DWI Defense

  • DWI (Driving While Intoxicated)
  • Criminal Defense
  • Traffic Violations
  • DMV Refusal Hearings
  • Sex Crimes
  • Shoplifting & Larceny
  • Assault & Vehicular Assault
  • Drug Possession
  • Drug Sales
  • Weapons Charges
  • Domestic Violence
  • How is a DWI Defined in New York?
  • Is the Driver’s License Confiscated Immediately Upon a DWI Arrest?

Medical Malpractice

  • Failure to Diagnose Cancer
  • Birth Injuries (Gynecological, Obstetrical)
  • Medication Errors
  • Surgical Errors
  • Gastric Bypass Surgery Errors
  • Emergency Room Errors
  • Failure to Diagnose Heart Attack or Stroke
  • Cerebral Palsy
  • Erbs Palsy Birth Injury

Trusts + Estates

  • Wills & Trusts
  • Divorce, Child Support, Custody Issues
  • Elder Law
  • Estate Planning
  • Guardianships
  • Medicaid-Planning
  • Power of Attorney / Health Care Proxy
  • Probate and Estate Administration
  • Surrogate Court Litigation
  • Real Estate
  • Business Formation
  • Wills
  • Will Contests

View All Practice Areas

View All Blogs

CLIENT TESTIMONIALS

" Last year I was injured in an accident, and for the first time, needed the advice of an attorney regarding how to proceed. I was referred to Thomas Gallivan through a family member who is a lawyer in Massachusetts. I am beyond pleased with how Thomas handled my case. He was knowledgeable, professional, and although the case was not as straightforward as some, he used every resource to ensure a positive outcome. Thomas communicated with me regularly and I felt completely informed and confident in his ability. He expertly negotiated a fair settlement that I was very happy with. The entire experience was extremely positive, during a stressful time for me. Thank you Thomas. "

Melanie

" Attorney Thomas Gallivan is a wonderful attorney!! I particularly liked his professionalism, consistency, always kept us updated on the case, and available upon request. He worked extremely hard and was persistent on getting the best settlement in a timely matter. I truly appreciated his prompt responsiveness to emails and phone calls. The office staff was very pleasant and made sure to get messages to him asap. Glad we chose this law firm, would highly recommend and in the event that we ever need an attorney again, Gallivan & Gallivan would be my primary choice. "

Katherine R.

" I was a passenger on a motorcycle and ended up falling off the back of the bike due to the driver acting like an idiot. I fell off at a high rate of speed and was very banged up. Fractured wrist and road rash down my back and elbows. I am lucky I didnt die. Not knowing what to do I contacted Thomas and he could not have been anymore helpful!! He went out of his way to meet with me. He actually came to my house for the initial consultation. I know nothing about law or what my options even were. He took me through everything step by step. "

Colin W.

View All Testimonials

245 Main St Suite 450 White Plains, NY 10601

Phone:
(914) 220-1086

Fax:
(516) 394-4229

555 5th Ave 14th Floor
New York, NY 10017

Toll Free:
(855) 228-7369

(By Appointment Only)

1370 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, NY 11556

Phone:
(914) 594-6820

Fax:
(516) 394-4229

12 1st St
Riverhead, NY 11901

Phone:
(914) 825-5855

Fax:
(516) 394-4229

Footer

  • Home
  • About
  • Practice Areas
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Contact Us

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

Copyright © 2022, Law Offices of Thomas L. Gallivan, PLLC