You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK WHEN HE FELL, LABOR LAW...

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK WHEN HE FELL, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department determined defendant’s summary judgment motion on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly granted. Although plaintiff fell when attempting to replace light bulbs in a strobe light on top of a van, he was not involved in construction work:

Labor Law § 240(1) “does not cover routine maintenance done outside the context of construction work” … . The replacement of “components that require replacement in the course of normal wear and tear” constitutes routine maintenance … . At the time of his fall, the plaintiff was engaged in the task of replacing burnt out light bulbs, which constitutes routine maintenance and therefore falls outside of the scope of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, his work did not take place in the context of a larger project which “encompassed activity protected under the statute … . Trotman v Verizon Communications, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07483, Second Dept 11-7-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK WHEN HE FELL, LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS SENT TO DEFENDANT IN AN ENVELOPE WHICH INCLUDED OTHER NOTICES, A VIOLATION OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY NOT LIABLE IN THIS INMATE-ON-INMATE THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
STATEMENT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL BY AN INCAPACITATED JUVENILE ADMISSIBLE IN PROBABLE CAUSE HEARING WHICH LED TO A MENTAL HEALTH COMMITMENT OF THE JUVENILE.
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS ARCHITECTURAL MALPRACTICE/BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
RESPONDENT, THE CHILDREN’S UNCLE WHO LIVED WITH THE CHILDREN’S FAMILY, WAS A FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A PARENT AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEEMED A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHILDREN IN THIS SEXUAL ABUSE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS INJURED WHEN THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING COLLAPSED, HIS ACTION AGAINST HIS EMPLOYER (A DEMOLITION COMPANY) WAS BARRED BY THE EXCLUSIVITY PROVISIONS OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COLLAPSE WAS FORESEEABLE IN THE ACTION AGAINST THE BUILDING OWNER, EVIDENCE THAT BEAMS HAD BEEN CUT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT MAKE A SUFFICIENTLY STRONG SHOWING TO SUPPORT DISCOVERY OF DEFENDANT’S PERSONAL TAX RETURNS; PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY’S FAILURE TO SUBMIT A GOOD FAITH AFFIRMATION WARRANTS DENIAL OF THE DISCOVERY MOTION; THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A DISCOVERY ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY NOT IMMUNE FROM SUIT ALLEGING NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE OF DRAINAGE SYSTEM; INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR MAY BE LIABLE FOR LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; FLOOD DAMAGE RESULTED FROM DREDGING OPERATION.

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

NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND BUS COMPANY STEMMING... PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE...