You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORK ON AIR CONDITIONER WAS REPAIR COVERED BY...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORK ON AIR CONDITIONER WAS REPAIR COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1).

The First Department determined there was a question of fact whether plaintiff was performing routine maintenance or repair of an air conditioner. Routine maintenance would not support a Labor Law 240(1) cause of action, while repair would:

Issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiff was performing routine maintenance, which would not implicate the protections of Labor Law § 240(1), or a repair within the meaning of the statute … , when he diagnosed an air conditioning unit’s malfunction, and replaced a component part. Although plaintiff testified that the compressor contactor malfunctioned due to normal wear and tear … , making it a worn-out component in an otherwise operable air conditioning unit … , and that the entire replacement took only 20 minutes, he also stated that this is not a part that would ordinarily require inspection, adjustment or replacement, and that it generally lasts as long as the compressor and can last the life of the unit, indicating that it was not a recurring event, and that the component was not intended to have a limited life … . Roth v Lenox Terrace Assoc., 2017 NY Slip Op 00402, 1st Dept 1-19-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORK ON AIR CONDITIONER WAS REPAIR COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1))/REPAIR (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORK ON AIR CONDITIONER WAS REPAIR COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1))/MAINTENANCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WORK ON AIR CONDITIONER WAS REPAIR COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1))

You might also like
42 USC 1983 ACTIONS AGAINST INDIVIDUAL POLICE OFFICERS DO NOT RELATE BACK TO THE ACTION AGAINST THE CITY, MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING NAMED OFFICERS PROPERLY DENIED.
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S WORK ON A BOILER WAS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OR PART OF A LARGER COVERED ACTIVITY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) ACTION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUPERVISE OR CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK REQUIRING DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTIONS (FIRST DEPT).
REMOVING A CRATE FROM A FLATBED TRUCK WAS AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1).
THE PROOF WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT). ​
COURT PROPERLY RELIED ON UNSIGNED COPIES OF A DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN SIGNED COPIES WITHIN 60 DAYS AND DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ACCURACY OF THE TRANSCRIPT (FIRST DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE ON THE GROUND THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS UNOPPOSED; PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THE PARTIES STIPULATED TO AN ADJOURNED DATE; LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED IN THE INTERST OF JUSTICE; SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED ON THE MERITS (FIRST DEPT).
THE CONTENTS OF A SAFE DEPOSIT BOX CONSTITUTED THE PROPERTY OF JOINT TENANTS WITH RIGHTS OF SURVIVORSHIP, THEREFORE THE CONTENTS ARE AVAILABLE TO SATISFY A JUDGMENT AGAINST ONLY ONE OF THE JOINT TENANTS (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING AT THE TOP OF A LADDER WHEN IT WOBBLED AND HE FELL; COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A DEFENSE TO A LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST 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

A COURT’S LIMIITED REVIEW POWERS RE AN AGENCY’S FINDINGS PURSUANT... LEASE WAS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO THWART (NYC) RENT CONTROL AND WAS THEREFORE VALID...