You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WORKING ON AN HVAC SYSTEM, THE WORK WAS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE,...

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WORKING ON AN HVAC SYSTEM, THE WORK WAS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 241 (1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s work on an HVAC system was routing maintenance, not covered by Labor Law 241 (6):

The plaintiff allegedly injured his back when he was performing a seasonal “start-up” of a cooling tower on the defendant’s HVAC system, which consisted of transitioning the HVAC system from heating to cooling. The company the defendant was employed by had done this work on a yearly basis for the past 10 years. As part of the work, the plaintiff and his coworker needed to reinstall a circulation pump on the HVAC tower, which had been removed for the winter months. To do so, the plaintiff tied a rope around the circulation pump, which weighed approximately 100 pounds, passed the rope over the top of an overhead beam, and pulled from the other side to raise the pump about three to five feet off the ground so his coworker could install it in the cooling tower. The plaintiff held the pump in the air for about 20 or 25 minutes while his coworker attempted to install it, but felt pain in his back and was unable to hold it any longer. The plaintiff allegedly needed back surgery as a result of the incident. …

Although maintenance work performed in connection with construction, demolition, or excavation work is included under Labor Law § 241(6), “[r]outine maintenance is not within the ambit of Labor Law § 241(6)” … . The Labor Law “does not cover routine maintenance in a nonconstruction, nonrenovation context” … . Byrnes v Nursing Sisters of the Sick Poor, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01736, Second Dept 3-13-19

 

You might also like
FALL WHEN DESCENDING A 28-FOOT LADDER ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, APPARENTLY A 40-FOOT LADDER WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFER BUT NONE WAS AVAILABLE, THEREFORE USE OF THE SHORTER LADDER COULD NOT BE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY.
THE AFFIDAVIT RELIED UPON BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION TO PROVE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT DID NOT IDENTIFY OR ATTACH THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS AND THEREFORE THE AFFIDAVIT HAD NO PROBATIVE VALUE (SECOND DEPT).
ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE NO LONGER APPLIES TO ANY ACTIONS OTHER THAN THOSE STEMMING FROM ATHLETIC AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES.
IN THIS PARKING LOT SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE DEFENDANTS FAILED TO PROVE WHEN THE AREA WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED OF ICE AND SNOW; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS DID NOT PROVE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ICY CONDTION AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PLEA ALLOCUTION RAISED THE POSSIBILITY OF DURESS AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; THE JUDGE MADE NO INQUIRY INTO THE VALIDITY OF PLEA; CONVICTION REVERSED DESPITE DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Is a Retired Judge—Change of Venue Appropriate to Avoid Appearance of Impropriety
IN A SLIP AND FALL, PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION; ONLY PROOF THE AREA WAS INSPECTED OR CLEANED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE FALL WILL SUFFICE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT GROCERY STORE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANT POINTED TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF INSTEAD OF AFFIRMATIVELY SHOWING IT DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION (WATER ON THE FLOOR IN FRONT OF A VEGETABLE DISPLAY WITH MELTING ICE) (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

PROVISION IN MORTGAGE WHICH GAVE BORROWER RIGHT TO DE-ACCELERATE THE DEBT DID... SUPREMACY CLAUSE DOES NOT PRECLUDE DEFAMATION SUIT AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP FOR...