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
INTRA- OR INTER- AGENCY EXEMPTION TO DISCLOSURE UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) DID NOT EXTEND TO COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN MAYOR DE BLASIO’S OFFICE AND A CONSULTANT RETAINED BY A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION (AS OPPOSED TO A CONSULTANT HIRED BY A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY), PREVAILING PARTIES ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES (FIRST DEPT).
SORA COURT MAY HAVE OVERASSESSED THE RISK IN A STATUTORY RAPE CASE, MATTER REMITTED FOR PROPER APPLICATION OF THE CRITERIA ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS IN PEOPLE V GILLOTTI (FIRST DEPT).
Failure to Get Court’s Permission to Represent to a Grand Jury Required Dismissal of Indictment​
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A FALLING OBJECT; COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A DEFENSE TO A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1), 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER ONE OF THE DEFENDANT’S EXERCISED SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE SITE (FIRST DEPT).
ONE PLAINTIFF-TENANT TESTIFIED HE MADE SEVERAL COMPLAINTS TO THE LANDLORD DEFENDANTS ABOUT THE TENANT WHO SET FIRE TO THE APARTMENT BUILDING, INFORMING THE DEFENDANTS THAT THE TENANT THREATENED “TO KILL EVERYONE” IN THE BUILDING AND WAS SEEN CARRYING GASOLINE TANKS INTO THE BUILDING; THE DEFENDANT LANDLORDS DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PREVENT THE TENANT FROM STARTING THE FIRE (FIRST DEPT).
NURSING SCHOOL BREACHED ITS IMPLIED CONTRACT WITH GRADUATED STUDENTS WHO WERE DEEMED INELIGIBLE FOR THE LICENSE EXAMINATION AND WERE NOT PERMITTED TO ENROLL IN A COLLEGE PROGRAM (FIRST DEPT).
RAW DATA IN REPORT CONNECTING DEFENDANT TO DNA EVIDENCE WAS NOT TESTIMONIAL IN NATURE, THEREFORE TESTIMONY ABOUT THE COLLECTION METHODS WAS NOT REQUIRED 1ST DEPT.
IN A REAR-END COLLISION, INNOCENT PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LACK OF FAULT, BUT CONFLICTING FACTS PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST ONE OR BOTH DEFENDANTS.

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

Breach of Covenant of Good Faith (Settlement) Can Give Rise to Consequential... Abuse Finding, Based Upon an Unsatisfactory Explanation for the Child’s...