You are here: / / Cleaning Gutters Not Covered

Cleaning Gutters Not Covered

The Second Department determined that cleaning out gutters is not work covered under Labor Law 240(1):

Although Labor Law § 240(1) applies to commercial “cleaning” which is not part of construction, demolition, or repair …, such as commercial window washing and sandblasting …, it does not apply to work that is incidental to regular maintenance, such as clearing gutters of debris … . Hull v Fieldpoint Community Assn Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 06837, 2nd Dept 10-23-13

 

You might also like
LIABILITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND ON THE PART OF THE CORPORATE PRINCIPALS WHO COMMITTED OPPRESSIVE ACTS AGAINST PLAINTIFF SHAREHOLDER.
PLAINTIFF-PEDESTRIAN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ALTHOUGH A PLAINTIFF NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE COURT CAN CONSIDER COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHERE, AS HERE, THE PLAINTIFF MOVES TO DISMISS THE COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
A COUNTY SHERIFF WAS INVOLVED IN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT FOR WHICH PETITIONER SOUGHT LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM; BECAUSE THE COUNTY WAS AWARE OF THE POTENTIAL ACTION FROM THE OUTSET, LEAVE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Whether Lost Evidence Was Relevant to Plaintiff’s Case Presented a Jury Question—Only If the Jury Determines the Evidence Was Relevant Can the Jury Consider the Adverse Inference Charge for Spoliation of Evidence
Nothing in the Documentation Submitted to the Lender Raised Any Questions About the Applicant’s Authority, as the Sole Member, to Enter the Mortgage on Behalf of Defendant Limited Liability Company—Therefore the Affirmative Defense Alleging the Mortgage Was Invalid Because there Were Undisclosed Members of the Limited Liability Company Was Properly Dismissed
Action Under Labor Law Based On Injury On a Ship in Dry-Dock Not Preempted by Federal Maritime Law
THERE WAS NO PROOF THE OFFICER WHO FRISKED THE DEFENDANT AND REMOVED A WALLET FROM DEFENDANT’S POCKET SUSPECTED THE WALLET WAS A WEAPON; THE WALLET, WHICH HAD BEEN STOLEN FROM THE VICTIM, SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; BECAUSE THE WALLET TENDED TO IDENTIFY DEFENDANT AS THE ROBBER, THE ERROR WAS NOT HARMLESS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED ON THE ROBBERY-RELATED OFFENSES (SECOND DEPT).
Amendment of Reply to Add Statute of Limitations Defense Allowed

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Special Immigrant Juvenile Law Triggered by Abuse, Neglect or Abandonment by... Effect of Witness’ Invocation of Fifth Amendment Privilege on Fairness Ex...