A fall from a scaffold, in and of itself, does not establish that the plaintiff was not provided with proper protection. Here, the plaintiff relies solely on his General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing testimony and his deposition testimony, which merely establish that he fell from a scaffold. The plaintiff fails to address whether there were scaffold rails, possible tie-off points for a harness, or some alternative fall protection. Without more, the plaintiff's testimony that he "moved [his] foot" to the left, causing him to step off of the scaffold and into an "empty space," and that "there was nothing there because [he] stepped on it and . . . thought it was something solid" is insufficient.
Torres v. New York City Hous. Auth., NY Slip Op 06207 (2d Dep't November 10, 2021)
