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
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE, PURSUANT TO THE TOWN CODE, FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE AREA OF THE SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A PROTRUDING BOLT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PARTIAL PAYMENT OF A DEBT WITHIN THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS PERIOD MAY REVIVE OR TOLL THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR AN ACTION BASED UPON THE DEBT (SECOND DEPT).
Labor Law 200 Action Is Not Based Upon Supervision or Control of Plaintiff’s Work, But Rather on the Property Owner’s Creation or Failure to Remedy a Dangerous Condition
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-DEFAULT MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
DRIVER AND CAR OWNER WERE NOT EMPLOYEES OF CAR SERVICE, CAR SERVICE THEREFORE NOT LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT UNDER DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR.
Consent Order Not Appealable; Open Court Stipulation Valid
Evidence of Shooting Committed by Defendant’s Twin Brother Was Highly Prejudicial and Had No Bearing Upon Defendant’s Guilt—Murder Conviction Reversed
​ IN THIS LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE;” THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE MOTION TO DISMSS SHOULD NOT 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

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...