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
EVIDENCE THE AREA WAS INSPECTED ONCE A MONTH DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE DRIVEWAY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
OWNERS OF A RESTAURANT-BAR NOT LIABLE FOR AN ATTACK ON PLAINTIFF IN THE ADJACENT PARKING LOT IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE, THE ATTACK WAS NOT FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S DOUBLE-PARKED TRUCK MERELY FURNISHED THE OCCASION FOR THE MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT OR WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT; PLAINTIFF FLIPPED OVER THE MOTORCYCLE BRAKING TO AVOID COLLIDING WITH THE TRUCK (SECOND DEPT).
Admissions In Hospital Records Which Contradicted Plaintiff’s Trial Testimony Properly Admitted/Seat Belt Defense Should Not Have Been Submitted to the Jury—Insufficient Foundation/”Missing Witness” Jury-Instruction Request Not Supported by a Showing the Testimony Would Be “Material” and “Noncumulative”
DOCUMENTS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S FALLS IN DEFENDANT’S NURSING HOME WERE NOT PRIVILEGED UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (SECOND DEPT).
Amendment of Reply to Add Statute of Limitations Defense Allowed
ALTHOUGH THE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST THE CITY WAS SERVED ONE DAY LATE, AND PLAINTIFF WAS SO NOTIFIED BY THE CITY, THE CITY ALSO INDICATED IN SEVERAL COMMUNICATIONS THAT IT WAS CONSIDERING THE CLAIM; THE CITY WAS THEREFORE EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT TIMELY SERVED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS DETAINED BY DEFENDANT HOME DEPOT’S EMPLOYEE BASED ON A FALSE ALLEGATION AND WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ARRESTED; PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT ON HIS BATTERY AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT CAUSES OF ACTION UPHELD (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...