You are here: / / Defendant Entitled to Summary Judgment–Activity (Routine Cleaning)...

Defendant Entitled to Summary Judgment–Activity (Routine Cleaning) Not Covered by Labor Law 240 (1)—Re: Labor Law 200 and Common Law Negligence: Equipment Provided by Defendant Not Defective; Defendant Did Not Have Authority to Control Plaintiff’s Work

The Second Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed an action by plaintiff-janitor who fell from an A-frame ladder while cleaning the basketball backboard in a school gymnasium. The Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly dismissed because cleaning the backboard was routine maintenance, not covered by Labor Law 240 (1).  The Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action were properly dismissed because the defendant school demonstrated the ladder was not defective and it did not have the authority to control the manner in which plaintiff did his work:

… [T]he injured plaintiff’s work did not constitute “cleaning” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1). The defendant established that the injured plaintiff was performing routine maintenance of the basketball backboards, done regularly throughout the course of the basketball season, that did not require any specialized equipment, and was unrelated to any ongoing construction or renovation of the school. As such, it was not a covered activity under Labor Law § 240(1) … . …

Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty of landowners and general contractors to provide workers with a reasonably safe place to work … . “To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 for injuries arising from the manner in which work is performed, a defendant must have authority to exercise supervision and control over the work'” … . Where a plaintiff’s injuries arise not from the manner in which the work was performed, but from a dangerous condition on the premises, a defendant may be liable under Labor Law § 200 if it ” either created the dangerous condition that caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition'” … . When an accident is alleged to involve defects in both the premises and the equipment used at the work site, a defendant moving for summary judgment with respect to causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 is obligated to address the proof applicable to both liability standards … . A defendant moving for summary judgment in such a case may prevail “only when the evidence exonerates it as a matter of law for all potential concurrent causes of the plaintiff’s accident and injury, and when no triable issue of fact is raised in opposition as to either relevant liability standard” … .

To the extent that the plaintiffs allege that the accident was caused by a defect in the ladder, which was owned and provided by the defendant, a premises condition is at issue … . However, the defendant established, prima facie, that the ladder was not in a defective condition and that, in any event, it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of any defect in the ladder … . …

To the extent that the plaintiffs allege that the accident was caused by the manner in which the work was performed, the defendant established, prima facie, that it did not have the authority to supervise or control the means and methods of the injured plaintiff’s work … . Torres v St. Francis Coll., 2015 NY Slip Op 05466, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

You might also like
Mother Not Given Sufficient Opportunity to Substantiate Her Income
There Was a Rational Bases for Fire District Board of Commissioners’ Rejection of Petitioner’s Bid to Supply a Radio Dispatch System—Court Cannot Substitute Its Own Judgment for the Board’s
Circumstantial Evidence Raised Question of Fact About Whether Respondents Were Responsible for the Placement of an Object Which Fell and Injured Plaintiff
“Equitable Subrogation” Doctrine Defined
Account Stated Criteria Met
THE MAJORITY FOUND PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT, ALLEGING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS GIVEN TOO MUCH MORPHINE, WAS SPECULATIVE AND CONCLUSORY; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED; THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE VEHICLE OWNER, HERE A CAR DEALERSHIP, IS USUALLY VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ACCIDENT CAUSED BY A DRIVER OPERATING THE VEHICLE WITH THE OWNER’S PERMISSION, HERE THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DRIVER, WHO WAS TEST DRIVING THE VEHICLE, EXCEEDED THE SCOPE OF THE PERMISSION (SECOND DEPT).
Awareness of a Conflict of Interest for Eight Months Constituted a Waiver of Any Objection to Opposing Counsel

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

Question of Fact Whether Landlord Entitled to Pass On Increased Real Estate... NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) Had the Authority to Enter a 10-Year...