First Department Rejects De Minimis Defense, Grants Summary Judgment for Worker’s Fall Under Labor Law 240(1)

The First Department has held that a fall from a height of 10 ½ to 20 inches is not a bar to summary judgment because the height differential is not, as a matter of law, de minimus. In this case, the plaintiff fell while he was standing on a stack of two pallets in order to use an elevated wet saw when his foot broke through a slab and he fell. 

The First Department reversed the lower court’s denial of summary judgment pursuant to Labor Law 240(1), reiterating that there is no “bright-line minimum height differential that determines whether an elevation hazard exists (quoting Haskins v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth., 227 AD3d 409, 409 [1st Dept 2024], quoting Brown v. 44th St. Dev., LLC, 137 AD3d 703, 703-704 [1st Dept 2016], and citing Arrasti v. HRH Constr. LLC, 60 AD3d 582, 583 [1st Dept 2009]). 

The court did give examples of what heights previously qualified under 240(1), such as fall from a two-step staircase, a fall from 12-18 inches, a fall from an inverted bucket and finally a fall from a hole 2 to 2 ½ feet deep. The court focused on the fact that, in this matter, the pallet was an improper work platform. 

This case is important as the de minimus defense is still available; however, it will be scrutinized and applied specifically to the facts surrounding the accident. 
 

_{Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}