You are here: / / “Cleaning” Within the Meaning of Labor Law 240(1) Explaine...

“Cleaning” Within the Meaning of Labor Law 240(1) Explained

The Second Department determined defendants were not entitled to summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) action. Plaintiff fell from a 20-foot ladder while cleaning windows.  The defendants were unable to demonstrate that the activity plaintiff was engaged in was not covered by Labor Law 240(1):

Labor Law § 240(1) provides protection for those workers performing maintenance that involves painting, cleaning, or pointing … . Other than commercial window cleaning, which is afforded protection pursuant to the statute …, whether an activity is considered “cleaning” for the purpose of Labor Law § 240(1) depends on certain factors. An activity is not considered “cleaning” when (1) it is performed on a routine or recurring basis as part of the ordinary maintenance and care of commercial premises, (2) does not require specialized equipment or expertise, (3) usually involves insignificant elevation risks comparable to those encountered during typical domestic or household cleaning, and (4) is unrelated to any ongoing construction, renovation, painting, alteration, or repair project … . “Whether [an] activity is cleaning’ is an issue for the court to decide after reviewing all of the factors. The presence or absence of any one is not necessarily dispositive if, viewed in totality, the remaining considerations militate in favor of placing the task in one category or the other” … .

The evidence submitted by the defendants in support of their motion failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s activity at the time of the accident could not be characterized as “cleaning” under Labor Law § 240(1). The evidence did not definitively demonstrate that the plaintiff was performing a routine task or that it was a task that involved an insignificant elevation risk which was comparable to those risks inherent in typical household cleaning … . Pena v Varet & Bogart LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 05524, 2nd Dept 7-30-14

 

You might also like
THE STOP OF THE TAXI IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE DEFENDANT HAD COMMITTED A CRIME; BECAUSE DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO ALL OFFENSES BASED UPON A PROMISE OF CONCURRENT SENTENCES, ALL CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Discovery of Name and Address of Nonparty Patient Alleged to Have Witnessed Negligence or Malpractice Prohibited Because Such Disclosure Would Reveal Privileged Information Re: the Nonparty Patient’s Diagnosis and Treatment (by Virtue of the Unit in Which the Nonparty Patient and Plaintiff’s Decedent Were Housed)
SUPREME COURT WAS WITHOUT POWER TO DIRECT DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE BECAUSE A 90-DAY NOTICE HAD NOT BEEN SERVED (SECOND DEPT).
A BLOCKED TRACHEOSTOMY TUBE IS A FORESEEABLE EVENT FOR WHICH DEFENDANT ANESTHESIOLOGIST WAS TRAINED AND PREPARED, THEREFORE THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE, DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
MAILING THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE TO BOTH BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE IS A VIOLATION OF RPAPL 1304 REQUIRING DENIAL OF THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
Foreign Money Judgment Properly Enforced—Criteria Explained
​REMOVING SCAFFOLDS, LADDERS, ETC. FROM THE WORKSITE WAS “ANCILLARY” TO THE RENOVATION WORK AND THEREFORE PROTECTED BY LABOR LAW 240(1); THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S FALLING OFF THE TOP OF THE VAN WHERE HE WAS LOADING THE EQUIPMENT WAS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (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

FOIL Request Should Not Have Been Denied—Questions of Fact About Ability... Fact that a Condition May Be Open and Obvious Does Not Eliminate Property Owner’s...