You are here: / / PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS SWEEPING THE FLOOR WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY BY A PIECE...

PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS SWEEPING THE FLOOR WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY BY A PIECE OF A SKIDLOADER USED TO HOIST A MOTOR, WAS NOT ENGAGED IN AN ACTIVITY COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) OR COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined that plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6) and common law negligence causes of action were properly dismissed. Plaintiff was sweeping the floor at an auto wrecking ship when “a piece of a skidloader being used to hoist a car engine broke and fell onto him:”

Labor Law § 240(1) is applicable to “the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure.” The dismantling of a vehicle unrelated to a building or a structure is not a protected activity under that statute … . Further, the sweeping being performed by the plaintiff at the time of the accident cannot be characterized as “cleaning” within the meaning of the statute, as it was the type of routine maintenance that occurs in any type of premises, did not require specialized tools, and could be accomplished “using tools commonly found in a domestic setting”… . Thus, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Labor Law § 241(6) only provides protection “to persons employed in, or lawfully frequenting, all areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed”… . The plaintiff was not engaged in construction or excavation at the time of the accident, and the “the mere act of dismantling a vehicle, whether a boat, a car or otherwise, unrelated to any other project, is not the sort of demolition intended to be covered by Labor Law § 241 (6)” … . Thus, the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The defendant also established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the common-law negligence cause of action. The defendant’s submissions demonstrated, prima facie, that the defendant did not supervise or control the work, and the injury-causing defect was the result of the methods being used by Jet to remove and transport a car engine … . Guevarra v Wreckers Realty, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 00859, Second Dept 2-6-19

 

You might also like
MOTION FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE ON DISCRETIONARY GROUNDS WAS MADE IN THE WRONG COUNTY, ISSUE PROPERLY HEARD ON APPEAL ALTHOUGH NOT RAISED BELOW (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant-Employer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Properly Denied—Defendant Did Not Submit Proof that Defendant’s Employee Was Not Acting Within the Scope of Employment When Employee Removed and Disseminated Photos from Plaintiff’s Cell Phone and Defendant Did Not Submit Proof Demonstrating It Did Not Know of the Employee’s Propensity for Such Conduct
NEGLIGENT CONCEALMENT CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST HOSPITAL ALLEGING THE FAILURE TO DISCLOSE BILLING PRACTICES SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST PROPERTY TRANSFER TO HER BROTHER BY HER MOTHER BASED UPON AN ALLEGATION MOTHER LACKED MENTAL CAPACITY AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSFER, PLAINTIFF HAD ONLY A POTENTIAL, SPECULATIVE INTEREST IN HER MOTHER’S PROPERTY.
BECAUSE THE HOLDER OF A FIRST MORTGAGE WAS A DEFENDANT IN THE TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS, THE MORTGAGE HOLDER DID NOT NEED TO FILE ITS OWN FORECLOSURE ACTION TO ENFORCE ITS LIEN ON THE SURPLUS TAX-FORECLOSURE-SALE PROCEEDS (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE A CONTEMPORARY REPORT PROVIDED THE CITY WITH NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE SLIP AND FALL, THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE THE LACK OF A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TIMELY FILE (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENTS SET FORTH IN A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MODIFIED IN THE ABSENCE OF A HEARING AND FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE UNTESTED BY THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).
THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH BY THE BANK; THEREFORE THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION 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

ONE INCH GAP AT THE TOP OF EXTERIOR STEPS ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S... STIPULATION OF DISCONTINUANCE OF THE PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DE-ACCELERATE...