You are here: / / Cleaning Clogged Drain Was Routine Maintenance, Not Covered by Labor Law...

Cleaning Clogged Drain Was Routine Maintenance, Not Covered by Labor Law 240(1)

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff was engaged in routine maintenance, not repair, and therefore his injury from a fall from a ladder was not covered under Labor Law 240(1):

Addressing … the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, we conclude that plaintiff was not “repairing” the corrosion chamber at the time he was injured, and thus that he was not engaged in a protected activity under section 240 (1). Rather, defendants established as a matter of law that plaintiff was involved in “routine maintenance in a non-construction, non-renovation context” … . The court therefore properly granted that part of defendants’ motion with respect to that cause of action and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion. Neither the corrosion chamber nor the components of the “drainage system,” i.e., the floor drain and plastic piping, were in need of “repair.” Rather, the drain was clogged, at least in part as a result of the normal operation of the chamber. Plaintiff testified at his deposition that the clog consisted of “paper and what looked to be like pieces of wooden dowel from like Q-tips that they use,” i.e., parts of samples that had been placed in the chamber on prior occasions, as well as an unknown substance. Although plaintiff and his supervisor testified that dirty conditions in the chamber could potentially compromise test results, there is no evidence that the chamber was ” inoperable or malfunctioning prior to the commencement of the work’ ” … . Further, there is no evidence that plaintiff had to use specialized tools or any tools at all to take apart the plastic piping. Indeed, defendants’ expert averred that the PVC piping had no mechanical fasteners and was “merely a friction fit, therefore, it would be a routine task to remove.” Plaintiff then used an air hose, metal wire, and a water hose to remove the clog, all of which were readily accessible to and used by him in the course of his employment. Leathers v Zaepfel Dev Co Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 06691, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

You might also like
THE SUPPRESSION COURT APPLIED THE WRONG “DEBOUR” LEVEL TO THE INITIAL INQUIRY BY THE OFFICER WHO APPROACHED DEFENDANT AND REQUESTED THAT HE STEP OUT OF THE CAR; BECAUSE THE SUPPRESSION ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN RULED UPON UNDER THE CORRECT “DEBOUR” STANDARD, THE APPELLATE COURT COULD NOT CONSIDER THE ISSUE AND THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR A RULING UNDER THE CORRECT “DEBOUR” STANDARD (FOURTH DEPT).
VILLAGE’S AGREEMENT TO SELL ONE MILLION GALLONS OF WATER PER DAY FOR TRANSPORT TO PENNSYLVANIA WAS A TYPE I ACTION REQUIRING SEQRA REVIEW.
THE TOWN BOARD’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE ITS REASONS FOR ITS RULING IN THIS VARIANCE PROCEEDING AND THE BOARD’S FAILURE TO MAKE ADEQUATE FINDINGS OF FACT REQUIRED THE APPELLATE COURT TO REMIT THE MATTER FOR THE SECOND TIME UNDER THREAT OF SANCTIONS (FOURTH DEPT).
CREDIBILITY ISSUES ARE FOR THE JURY, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BASED UPON THE JUDGE’S FINDING DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S TESTIMONY CREDIBLE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH CASE (FOURTH DEPT).
INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD, MOTHER TRANSPORTED DEAD BODY IN A CAR IN WHICH FOUR YEAR OLD DAUGHTER WAS RIDING, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF A JURY NOTE REQUIRED REVERSAL.
DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF GRAND LARCENY BASED UPON OVERCHARGING HER EMPLOYER; THE RESTITUTION SHOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED THE LABOR COSTS INCURRED BY THE EMPLOYER FOR INVESTIGATING THE CRIME OR THE TRAVEL COSTS FOR WITNESSES TO TESTIFY AT TRIAL; THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT REFUSED TO FOLLOW A THIRD DEPARTMENT DECISION RE: TRAVEL EXPENSES AND LOST WORK ASSOCIATED WITH TESTIFYING AT TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).
PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE WARRANT WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST WAS VALID, THE PAT-DOWN SEARCH WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AS A SAFETY MEASURE, SEIZED DRUGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED.

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

Court Indicates a Certification Claimant Is Not Working Can Be a “Willful... The Language of the NYC Rent Control Law, Unlike the Language of the NYC Rent...