You are here: / / Ladder Which “Kicked Out” from Under Plaintiff Entitled Plaintiff...

Ladder Which “Kicked Out” from Under Plaintiff Entitled Plaintiff to Partial Summary Judgment/Replacement of Cracked Glass Constituted Covered “Repair” Not Routine Maintenance

The First Department, over a dissent, determined that the replacement of cracked glass in skylight constituted repair rather than routine maintenance, and therefore was a covered activity under Labor Law 240 (1).  A ladder used by the plaintiff to access the skylight “kicked out” from under him:

“The plaintiff need not demonstrate that the [safety device] was defective or failed to comply with applicable safety regulations,” but only that it “proved inadequate to shield [plaintiff] from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person” … . The inexplicable shifting of an unsecured ladder may alone support a § 240(1) claim if a worker is caused to fall due to such shifting … . A worker’s prima facie entitlement to partial summary judgment on his or her § 240(1) claim may be established by proof that the ladder provided collapsed under the worker while he or she was engaged in an enumerated task … .

The crux of this case involves the question of whether plaintiff was involved in repair or maintenance work. “Essentially, routine maintenance for purposes of the statute is work that does not rise to the level of an enumerated term such as repairing or altering” … . In distinguishing between what constitutes repair as opposed to routine maintenance, courts will consider such factors as “whether the work in question was occasioned by an isolated event as opposed to a recurring condition” …; whether the object being replaced was “a worn-out component” in something that was otherwise “operable” …; and whether the device or component that was being fixed or replaced was intended to have a limited life span or to require periodic adjustment or replacement …

.

Here, plaintiff described the panes as being constructed of “heavy plate glass” with wire running through them and stated that they simply “do not crack or wear out over time.” Plaintiff showed, without contradiction, that these panes were not being replaced as a result of normal wear and tear, as they were not expected to be regularly replaced. Soriano v St Mary’s Orthodox Church of Rockland, Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 04419, 1st Dept 6-17-14

 

You might also like
THE FAILURE TO MENTION THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE ON THE VERDICT SHEET WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BY AN OBJECTION AND THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE APPELLATE JURISDICTION WILL NOT BE INVOKED WHERE THERE WAS AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT (FIRST DEPT).
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EXECUTIVE-COMPENSATION-CAP AND CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST RULES FOR AGENCIES PROVIDING SERVICES TO DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED CHILDREN DO NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE.
INSURER OF A BUS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE BUS COMPANY IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY A PASSENGER WHO FELL ATTEMPTING TO PICK UP HER LUGGAGE OUTSIDE THE BUS (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS USING A CLOSED A-FRAME LADDER WHEN IT SLIPPED OUT FROM UNDER HIM; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO JOIN A NECESSARY PARTY JUSTIFIED DISMISSAL AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN (FIRST DEPT).
Fees Owed by Seller to “Financial Advisor” Hired by Seller to Facilitate the Sale Were Excluded from the Asset Purchase Agreement (APA)—Doctrine of “De Facto Merger” Did Not Apply in Absence of “Continuity of Ownership”
PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD WHICH DID NOT HAVE GUARDRAILS AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION DESPITE DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENTS THAT PLAINTIFF DID NOT LOCK THE WHEELS ON THE SCAFFOLD AND PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE FAINTED OR STEPPED BACKWARDS OFF THE SCAFFOLD (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON A LADDER WHEN THE DEFECTIVE GRINDER INJURED HIM, THE LADDER DID NOT FAIL AND THE LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED; HOWEVER THE DEFECTIVE GRINDER PRESENTED A SAFETY ISSUE COVERED BY LABOR LAW 241(6) AND THE OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR MAY BE LIABLE EVEN IF THEY DID NOT SUPERVISE THE WORKSITE (FIRST 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

Under NYC Administrative Code, Abutting Owners Have Duty to Maintain Sidewalk... Plaintiffs Granted Summary Judgment In Action Against Golf Course Re: Incursion...