You are here: / / Question of Fact Whether Vacuuming an HVAC Duct Was a Covered Cleaning...

Question of Fact Whether Vacuuming an HVAC Duct Was a Covered Cleaning Activity Under the Labor Law

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether vacuuming an HVAC duct was a covered “cleaning” activity under Labor Law 240(1):

Outside the sphere of commercial window washing (which is covered by Labor Law § 240[1]), the determination of whether an activity may be characterized as “cleaning” under the statute depends on a consideration of four factors. An activity cannot be considered “cleaning” under the statute if it: “(1) is routine, in the sense that it is the type of job that occurs on a daily, [*2]weekly or other relatively-frequent and recurring basis as part of the ordinary maintenance and care of commercial premises; (2) requires neither specialized equipment or expertise, nor the unusual deployment of labor; (3) generally involves insignificant elevation risks comparable to those inherent in typical domestic or household cleaning; and (4) in light of the core purpose of Labor Law § 240(1) to protect construction workers, is unrelated to any ongoing construction, renovation, painting, alteration or repair project” … . Collymore v 1895 WWA, LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 00320, 2nd Dept 1-22-14

 

You might also like
TO BE ENTITLED TO A CHANGE OF VENUE AS OF RIGHT, THE DEMAND MUST BE SERVED WITH THE ANSWER OR BEFORE THE ANSWER IS SERVED; TO BE ENTITLED TO A DISCRETIONAY CHANGE OF VENUE, THE MOTION MUST BE MADE PROMPTLY AFTER LEARNING OF THE GROUND FOR THE CHANGE; HERE THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
EXTENSIONS OF NONCONFORMING USE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED.
Doctrine of Comity Precluded New York Action Attacking Bermuda Judgment
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED FATHER VISITATION BASED UPON FATHER’S BEHAVIOR WHEN MOTHER TESTIFIED; FUTURE VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONDITIONED UPON DRUG SCREENINGS AND A MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION.
ALLOWING UBER DRIVERS TO PICK UP PASSENGERS VIA SMARTPHONE APPLICATION IS NOT AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING OF THE PROPERTY OF TAXI CAB AND LIMOUSINE DRIVERS (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE (SECOND DEPT).
OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE FOR FALL ON A WET FLOOR IN THE LEASED PREMISES.
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS IN DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, SHE STILL CAN CONTEST THE AMOUNT OWED; THE REFEREE’S REPORT HERE WAS REJECTED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED IN PART ON UNPRODUCED BUSINESS RECORDS AND THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR RECALCULATION (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Tenant Who Successfully Defended a Landlord’s Holdover Action Entitled to... Court May Impliedly Vacate Note of Issue by Directing Discovery