INJURY WHILE DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE DID NOT GIVE RISE TO LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION.
The Second Department determined plaintiff was doing routine maintenance (checking light fixtures) when he was injured by a loose electric cable and his Labor Law causes of action were properly dismissed:
The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) by offering proof that the plaintiff was involved in routine maintenance rather than repair and, therefore, the plaintiff’s activity did not fall within the protection of that provision of the Labor Law … . …
The defendants also demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6). The plaintiff was not involved in the activity of construction, excavation, or demolition, and the statute does not protect workers involved in maintenance or replacement of parts … . …
The defendants also demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. The defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that they neither created nor had notice of the loose cable that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s electric shock … . Guevera v Simon Prop. Group, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 09254, 2nd Dept 12-16-15
MPNTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES:
LABOR LAW (INJURY WHILE DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE NOT COVERED)/ROUTINE MAINTENANCE (INJURY NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW)