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
Statement Elicited by Unnecessary Force Properly Suppressed
IN THE FACE OF DEFENDANT’S AND DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR NEW COUNSEL, COUNTY COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY DENYING THE REQUEST WITHOUT MAKING A MINIMAL INQUIRY (FOURTH DEPT).
ONLY ONE FINE SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED WHERE TWO CONVICTIONS AROSE FROM THE SAME ACT.
IN THIS VISITATION-MODIFICATION PROCEEDING, DAUGHTER’S OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS WERE NOT SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED.
AFTER REVERSAL BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS GRANTED AND HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS VACATED; EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION DID NOT RELATE TO THE OFFENSE TO WHICH DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY, THE APPELLATE DIVISION SHOULD HAVE REACHED THE MERITS OF THE MOTION BECAUSE OF ITS POTENTIAL EFFECT ON THE DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY TO ANOTHER OFFENSE IN FULL SATISFACTION OF ALL THE CHARGES (FOURTH DEPT).
DISABLED POLICE OFFICER SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED BREACHES OF A DUTY OF CARE BY THE CITY AND BY HEALTH CARE MANAGERS WHICH CONTRACTED WITH THE CITY TO MANAGE PLAINTIFF’S HEALTH CARE.
Exception to Written Notice of Defect Prerequisite Did Not Apply; Question of Fact Whether Municipality Created Dangerous Condition (Gap in Bridge-Roadway)
A FAMILY COURT PROCEEDING IS CIVIL IN NATURE AND THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE APPLIES ONLY IN CRIMINAL MATTERS, THEREFORE DOCUMENTS WRITTEN BY A PSYCHIATRIST WHO DID NOT TESTIFY WERE ADMISSIBLE (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

Petitioner Did Not Have Standing to Contest Negative SEQRA Finding/”Alienation... Labor Law 200 Cause of Action Requires Supervisory Control Over How Plaintiff...