You are here: / / Labor Law 241(6) Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed/Power Washing Was...

Labor Law 241(6) Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed/Power Washing Was Integral to the Painting Process and Was Not “Routine Maintenance”

The Second Department determined the Labor Law 241(6) action should not have been dismissed because the work plaintiff was doing, power-washing a building in preparation for painting, was not “routine maintenance,” but rather was an integral part of the painting process:

The defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, since they did not demonstrate that the plaintiff, who was injured while power washing buildings in preparation for painting them, was not engaged in a specifically enumerated activity under 12 NYCRR 23-1.4(b)(13). Painting is an activity enumerated under that provision …, and the power washing performed here … was in preparation for, and a contractual part of, the painting work. Accordingly, the power washing did not constitute “routine maintenance” excluded from the ambit of Labor Law § 241(6), but rather, constituted surface preparation, an integral part of the painting process contemplated by the parties.  Dixson v Waterways at Bay Pointe Home Owners Assn Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 08591, 2nd Dept 12-26-13

 

You might also like
MOTION TO AMEND NOTICE OF CLAIM TO ADD NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
DEFENDANTS’ AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED IN REPLY TO CLAIMANT’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
INJURY FROM STEPPING INTO AN OPENING THAT IS NOT BIG ENOUGH FOR A PERSON TO FALL THROUGH IS NOT COVERED BY LABOR 240 (1) OR 241 (6) (SECOND DEPT).
Court Has No Power to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute in Absence of 90-Demand to File and Serve Note of Issue
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE SUMMONED A NECESSARY PARTY WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT PURSUANT TO CPLR 1001; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE A DEFENDANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DESPITE THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND LAW-OFFICE-FAILURE EXCUSE (SECOND DEPT).
Supreme Court Should Not Have Ordered a Unified (Liability and Damages) Trial–Criteria Explained in Some Depth
Criteria for a Civil Contempt Finding
AN ALLEGED CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS NOT IN PLAIN VIEW IN THE VEHICLE; THEREFORE THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A CLOSED CONTAINER IN THE VEHICLE, WHICH REVEALED A WEAPON, WAS NOT JUSTIFIED; WEAPONS CHARGES DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

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

Imprisonment and Prosecution Based Upon the Violation of an Administratively... “Wheel Stop” in Parking Lot Does Not Present an Unreasonable Risk of Ha...