You are here: / / INVESTIGATING A MALFUNCTION CONSTITUTES COVERED REPAIR UNDER LABOR LAW...

INVESTIGATING A MALFUNCTION CONSTITUTES COVERED REPAIR UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff was covered by Labor Law 240(1) when he was diagnosing a problem on a cell tower, which constituted “repair” under the statute. The Fourth Department further concluded the defendants raised a question of fact about whether plaintiff had been provided with sufficient safety equipment (the dissent argued defendants had not raised a question of fact on that issue):

Here, plaintiff testified that he never performed preventive maintenance on the towers, and that he and his coworkers were dispatched to a tower only when something was in need of repair … . Indeed, plaintiff's submissions establish that an item on the tower was malfunctioning prior to commencement of the work, and that plaintiff was injured after climbing approximately 180 feet to conduct an investigation into the cause of the alarm and to remedy the malfunction … . Where, as here, ” a person is investigating a malfunction, . . . efforts in furtherance of that investigation are protected activities under Labor Law § 240 (1)' ” … . Cullen v AT&T, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 04503, 4th Dept 6-10-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (INVESTIGATING A MALFUNCTION CONSTITUTES COVERED REPAIR UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1))/REPAIR (LABOR LAW, INVESTIGATING A MALFUNCTION CONSTITUTES COVERED REPAIR UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1))

You might also like
SCHOOL DISTRICT’S TERMINATION OF A CERTAIN HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION FOR RETIREES WAS NOT QUASI-LEGISLATIVE, THEREFORE MAILING THE NOTIFICATION LETTER DID NOT TRIGGER THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ARTICLE 78 CONTESTING THE ACTION.
Conditioning Co-Defendant’s Plea on a Promise Not to Testify in Defendant’s Trial Is a Denial of the Right to Present a Defense
DEFENDANT OFFERED A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION OF THE REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Statements Made by Defendant to Physician In Presence of Police Investigator Not Privileged
County Has a Duty to Protect Jail Inmates from the Foreseeable Assaults by Other Inmates
APPEAL DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS FROM A STIPULATION ENTERED BY CONSENT, IT WAS NOT FROM AN APPEALABLE ORDER UNDER CPLR 5701, AND THE ISSUES COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR APPEAL, COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE NOTIFIED THE COURT OF THE PRIOR DISMISSED APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO PROCEED PRO SE ON THE PEOPLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL A BUCCAL SWAB FOR DNA TESTING (FOURTH DEPT).
Because the Habeas Corpus Petition Sought the Transfer of Kiko, A Chimpanzee, to Another Facility, Rather than Immediate Release, the Petition Must Be Denied, Regardless of Whether Kiko is Deemed a Person for Purposes of the Writ

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

FAILURE TO PRESERVE SURVEILLANCE VIDEOS TRIGGERED NEED FOR ADVERSE INFERENCE... DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REMARK (THAT SHOULD BE FINE) IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S...