You are here: / / REPAIR OF AN AIR CONDITIONER WAS NOT A PROTECTED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW...

REPAIR OF AN AIR CONDITIONER WAS NOT A PROTECTED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 246(1), LADDER WAS NOT DEFECTIVE AND DEFENDANT DID NOT CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THEREFORE NO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200(1) AS WELL.

The Second Department determined defendant (Nickel) was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law 200(1), 246(1) and 240(1) causes of action. Plaintiff was injured when he fell of a ladder while attempting to fix an air conditioner which had stopped running. Plaintiff was not engaged in a protected activity under Labor Law 240(1) or 246(1). The Labor Law 200(1) cause of action was properly dismissed because defendant did not control the manner of plaintiff’s work:

Nickel submitted evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff was not engaged in an enumerated activity protected under Labor Law § 240(1) at the time of his accident. Furthermore, Nickel submitted evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff’s accident did not involve construction, demolition, or excavation and, accordingly, that Labor Law § 241(6) does not apply. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Supreme Court properly granted that branch of Nickel’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action insofar as asserted against it, albeit for a different reason. Nickel established, prima facie, that the ladder was not defective, and the plaintiff conceded that fact. Thus, the potential liability of Nickel, contrary to the Supreme Court’s finding, was not based on its actual or constructive notice of any dangerous or defective condition of the ladder … . Instead, the plaintiff allegedly was injured as a result of the manner in which he performed his work. Accordingly, recovery against Nickel under Labor Law § 200 or under the common law may only be found if Nickel had the authority to supervise or control the performance of the work … . Nickel established, prima facie, that it did not have authority to exercise supervision or control over the means and methods of the plaintiff’s work. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . Mammone v T.G. Nickel & Assoc., LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 07300, 2nd Dept 11-9-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (REPAIR OF AN AIR CONDITIONER WAS NOT A PROTECTED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 246(1), LADDER WAS NOT DEFECTIVE AND DEFENDANT DID NOT CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THEREFORE NO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200(1) AS WELL)/LADDERS  (REPAIR OF AN AIR CONDITIONER WAS NOT A PROTECTED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 246(1), LADDER WAS NOT DEFECTIVE AND DEFENDANT DID NOT CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THEREFORE NO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200(1) AS WELL)

You might also like
Failure to File Proof of Service Is a Procedural Irregularity Which Can Be Cured
Worker Taking Onsite Measurements for Offsite Fabrication Covered Under Labor Law 240 (1)
GUARANTOR OF A CRIMINALLY USURIOUS LOAN WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN AN ACTION SEEKING PAYMENT, THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL IN PAIS DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).
Labor Law 200/Common-Law Negligence Cause of Action Properly Dismissed—City Demonstrated It Did Not Have the Authority to Supervise and Control the Work—Labor Law 241(6) Cause of Action, However, Should Not Have Been Dismissed—Nondelegable Duty to Provide a Safe Workplace
UNEXPECTED ABSENCE OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS AFTER ARRESTING OFFICERS TESTIFIED ABOUT THE WITNESS’S INVOLVEMENT IN DEFENDANT’S ARREST DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
RATHER THAN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED THE NECESSARY PARTIES SUMMONED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE WAS VOID PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY LAW 265-b; NOT CLEAR WHETHER DEFENDANT LAW FIRM WAS ACTING AS A CONSULTANT IN A MATTER CONCERNING A DISTRESSED HOME LOAN; IF SO, THE DEFENDANT CAN VOID THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE: (1) STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; (2) COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISION IN THE MORTGAGE; AND (3), COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

REPLACING A SPEAKER IN CONJUNCTION WITH INSTALLING PANELING CONSTITUTED ALTERING,... FALL WHEN DESCENDING A 28-FOOT LADDER ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT,...