You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN ‘CLEANING’ WITHIN THE MEANING...

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN ‘CLEANING’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHEN SHE FELL FROM A LADDER, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the “cleaning” being done by plaintiff when she fell from a ladder was not covered by Labor Law 240 (1):

The plaintiff was an employee of a cleaning services company which was hired to clean a condominium apartment following a renovation by the defendant Morgan Interiors, Inc. (hereinafter Morgan Interiors). On the day of the occurrence in question, the plaintiff arrived at the apartment along with a cleaning crew, where she was directed by her supervisor to clean certain floor-to-ceiling cabinets and was given a stepladder and a cloth for this purpose. …

The determination of whether an activity may be considered “cleaning” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1), as opposed to routine maintenance, has been held to depend on four factors, considered as a whole. An activity will not be considered “cleaning” under the statute (1) if it is “routine,” that is, it is performed on a daily, weekly, or other relatively frequent recurring basis as part of ordinary maintenance; (2) if it does not require specialized equipment or expertise, nor unusual deployment of labor; (3) if it involves insignificant elevation risks comparable to those encountered during typical domestic or household cleaning, and (4) if it is unrelated to any ongoing construction, renovation, painting, alteration, or repair project … .

Here, the moving defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that the plaintiff was not engaged in “cleaning” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1), as her work did not require specialized equipment, and was unrelated to any ongoing construction or renovation of the apartment. Holguin v Barton, 2018 NY Slip Op 02602, Second Dept 4-18-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN ‘CLEANING’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHEN SHE FELL FROM A LADDER, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CLEANING (LABOR LAW 240 (1), PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN ‘CLEANING’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHEN SHE FELL FROM A LADDER, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
THE COURT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO SENTENCE DEFENDANT AS A SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF AN A FELONY; THE LENGTH OF DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE, HOWEVER, IS NOT AFFECTED (SECOND DEPT).
Challenges for Cause Should Have Been Granted 
FAMILY COURT, UPON REMITTAL AFTER A PRIOR REVERSAL ON APPEAL, DID NOT MAKE A SUFFICIENT RECORD FOR REVIEW OF ITS ORDER RE: FATHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS (SECOND DEPT).
JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN, CONVICTION REVERSED.
Presumption Vehicle Was Operated with Owner’s Consent Not Overcome—Defendant Not Entitled to Summary Judgment
KNEE INJURY CAUSED BY CARRYING A HEAVY STEEL BEAM DOWN STAIRS IS NOT A COVERED ACCIDENT UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).
BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH A REFERRING PHYSICIAN CAN NOT BE VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE PHYSICIAN TO WHOM THE PATIENT WAS REFERRED, THE REFERRING PHYSICIAN MAY BE LIABLE FOR HER OWN NEGLIGENCE WITH RESPECT TO CONFERRING WITH THE OTHER PHYSICIAN ABOUT THEIR DIFFERENT FINDINGS (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ANY CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE INSURER WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S... QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE WORK ON A BOILER WAS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE (NOT...