You are here: / / INJURY WHILE DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE DID NOT GIVE RISE TO LABOR LAW CAUSES...

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)

You might also like
NO EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION JURY INSTRUCTION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
Plaintiffs Should Have Been Allowed to Amend the Pleadings to Conform to the Proof at Trial—No Prejudice to Defendant
LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION MAY BE PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (SECOND DEPT).
​ THE PLAINTIFFS IN THIS SUIT AMONG BROTHERS ABOUT THE FATHER’S ESTATE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OR TO SUE AS BENEFICIARIES OF THE ESTATE; THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BASES FOR THE UPWARD DEPARTURE WERE ALREADY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES; UPWARD DEPARTURE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
In a Case Consolidated with the Case Summarized Immediately Above, Defendant Was Entitled to Summary Judgment After Demonstrating None of the Three Theories of “Tort Liability Arising from Contract” Applied—Because the Facts Are Not Discussed, It Is Not Clear Why All Three Potential Theories Were Addressed in this Action But Only One Needed to Be Addressed in the Other (To Be Safe, Address All Three?)
GUILTY PLEA INDUCED BY AN UNFULFILLED PROMISE VACATED.
LABOR LAW 240(1) DOES NOT APPLY TO SLIPPING ON A STAIRCASE STEP, THE PERMANENT STAIRCASE IS NOT A SAFETY DEVICE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO ADD AN INDUSTRIAL CODE VIOLATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NEW YORK WOULD REMAIN “HOME STATE” FOR A CUSTODY MATTER IF FATHER... FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN AREA WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED REQUIRED DENIAL...