You are here: / / Cleaning Cement Truck After Cement-Delivery Not Covered by Labor Law 2...

Cleaning Cement Truck After Cement-Delivery Not Covered by Labor Law 240

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined plaintiff was not engaged in an activity protected by Labor Law 240 at the time of the injury.  Plaintiff had just delivered concrete to the defendant farm and was cleaning his truck when he fell from a ladder attached to the truck:

…[W]e agree with defendant that the activity in which plaintiff was engaged at the time of his injury, i.e., the routine cleaning of his employer’s cement truck after making a delivery, “was not the kind of undertaking for which the Legislature sought to impose liability under Labor Law § 240′ ” … . Specifically, plaintiff “was not engaged in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing’ of a building or structure’ within the intended meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1)” … . Rather, he was “engaged in routine maintenance” of the cement truck, “which is not a protected activity under Labor Law § 240 (1)” … .

We reject the dissent’s view that this case is distinguishable from Koch because the plaintiff in that case was “merely a delivery driver” while “there is evidence here that plaintiff operated the machinery of the cement truck to assist in the pouring of the concrete as part of the construction of the silo.” Any such distinction, even if supported by the record, is irrelevant to the applicability of Labor Law § 240 (1).  Bish v Odell Farms Partnership, 2014 NY Slip Op 05063, 4th Dept 7-3-14

 

You might also like
THE INSTALLATION OF MOTION-ACTIVATED SECURITY LIGHTS WHICH SHINE INTO A NEIGHBOR’S PROPERTY CAN CONSTITUTE A PRIVATE NUISANCE (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF MOVED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE AND CERTIFICATE OF READINESS HAD BEEN FILED; EVEN THOUGH THE AMENDMENT ADDED A CAUSE OF ACTION REQUIRING FURTHER DISCOVERY, THE MOTION WAS GRANTED BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP EXISTED BETWEEN BROKER AND PLAINTIFF, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR FLOOD INSURANCE (WHICH WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE POLICY) SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST PLANTIFF FOR TRESPASS AFTER SHE WAS ASKED TO LEAVE THE RESTAURANT BY RESTAURANT STAFF; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S FALSE ARREST CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
Failure to Warn Defendant that Failure to Appear Would Result in a Harsher Sentence Required Vacation of the Harsher Sentence
NO SHOWING RUG OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS NOT FLUSH TO THE FLOOR, HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL WAS TRIVIAL, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
CONVICTION BASED SOLELY ON DEFENDANT’S CONFESSION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
ALTHOUGH THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN VIRGINIA, PLAINTIFF’S CHOICE OF FORUM (NEW YORK) SHOULD HAVE BEEN UPHELD; VIRGINIA WITNESSES MAY COME TO NEW YORK VOLUNTARILY OR THE VIRGINIA WITNESSES COULD BE DEPOSED IN VIRGINIA; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SPECULATED ABOUT THE AVAILABILITY OF VIRGINIA WITNESSES (FOURTH 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

Questions of Fact Raised About Labor Law 240(1), 240(6) and 200 Causes of Action—Labor... Sex Offender May Not Avoid Civil Commitment Proceeding by Renouncing Citizenship...