You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STOCKING SHELVES WAS PART OF A LARGER RENOVATION...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER STOCKING SHELVES WAS PART OF A LARGER RENOVATION PROJECT AND THEREFORE A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) action should have been denied. Plaintiff was stocking shelves when he fell 20 feet. There was a question of fact whether stocking shelves was part of the larger renovation project and therefore covered under Labor Law 240 (1):

… [T]he warehouse defendants’ submissions failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff’s activity in stocking shelves was not performed as part of the larger renovation project that he had been hired to complete on the premises, including assembly of the shelving structures and other tasks attendant to preparing the warehouse to receive … stock merchandise … . Bonilla-Reyes v Ribellino, 2019 NY Slip Op 01193, Second Dept 2-20-19

 

You might also like
Subpoena Can Not Be Used for Discovery Purposes​
Stipulation of Settlement Not Enforceable/All Material Terms Not Included
Revocation of Driver’s License for Refusal of the Chemical Test Reversed—No “Reasonable Suspicion” to Justify Vehicle Stop
DESPITE TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS, GRANDMOTHER HAD STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION AND VISITATION WITH GRANDMOTHER WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD BEFORE THE SUSPENSION OF HIS COMMITMENT TO JAIL FOR NONPAYMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT WAS REVOKED; THE ISSUE IS APPEALABLE EVEN THOUGH FATHER HAS SERVED HIS TERM OF INCARCERATION (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT DID NOT ARTICULATE ITS REASONS FOR DETERMINING CHILD SUPPORT BASED ON PARENTAL INCOME IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY CAP; THE ORIGINAL SUPPORT LEVEL BASED ON THE STATUTORY CAP REINSTATED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BUILDING DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE SLIPPED AND FELL ON WATER ON THE FLOOR WAS INSPECTED AND FOUND TO BE DRY CLOSE IN TIME TO THE ALLEGED FALL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
NEITHER NEW YORK NOR PENNSYLVANIA IS THE HOME STATE OF THE CHILD IN THIS CUSTODY CASE; NEW YORK HAS JURISDICTION BECAUSE OF THE CHILD’S CONNECTIONS TO THE STATE; FAMILY COURT REVERSED (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

BANK ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE SUBROGATION (SECOND... PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE FRAUD AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY...