You are here: / / PLAINTIFF, WHO FELL THROUGH A HOLE IN A HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, WAS NOT...
,

PLAINTIFF, WHO FELL THROUGH A HOLE IN A HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION WORK COVERED BY LABOR 240 (1) OR 241 (6), PLAINTIFF WAS MEASURING WINDOWS FOR FUTURE INSTALLATION OF WINDOW TREATMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff, who fell through a hole in a house under construction, was not engaged in an activity covered by Labor Law 240 (1) or 241 (6) when he fell. Plaintiff was measuring windows for future installation of window treatments, which is not construction work. There were questions of fact on the negligence and wrongful death causes of action however:

… [T]he work of measuring windows for the future installation of window treatments is not a protected activity under Labor Law § 240 (1). The work did not involve a “significant physical change to the configuration or composition of the building or structure” … , was not “performed in the context of the larger construction project” … , and was not “necessary and incidental to the construction of the home” … . …

The work being performed by decedent was not protected work under Labor Law § 241 (6) inasmuch as decedent ” was not involved with [any] construction’ “… , and the window treatment work was separate and “distinct from the construction work” … . Acox v Jeff Petroski & Sons, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 03480, Fourth Dept 5-3-19

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S BIPOLAR DIAGNOSIS AND A STATEMENT INDICATING HIS FAILURE TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OFFENSE DID NOT JUSTIFY AN UPWARD DEPARTURE FROM SORA RISK-LEVEL TWO TO THREE; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Successful Challenge to Property Tax Assessment Affirmed,
THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE WAS NOT FOR THE “SALE OF GOODS” AND THEREFORE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (UCC) (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE FOREIGN CORPORATION MIGHT BE LIABLE FOR CONTAMINATION OF PLAINTIFFS’ PROPERTY, THE CORPORATION HAS NO PRESENT CONTACTS IN NEW YORK AND THEREFORE IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE COURT’S JURISDICTION (FOURTH DEPT)
THE TRANSFER OF DECEDENT’S HOME TO THE TWO CHILDREN WHO WERE CARING FOR HIM WAS COMPENSATION FOR THE CAREGIVERS PURSUANT TO AN AGREEMENT, NOT A GIFT (WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY) (FOURTH DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED OF MENACING AT THE FIRST TRIAL BUT THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE MENACING CHARGES WAS ALLOWED IN THE SECOND TRIAL; THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE PRECLUDED PRESENTATION OF THAT EVIDENCE IN THE SECOND TRIAL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
COUNTY’S INTERPRETATION OF REGULATION WAS RATIONAL AND COULD NOT, THEREFORE, BE DISTURBED BY THE COURT; TIME LIMITS APPLICABLE TO ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS ARE DISCRETIONARY.
Question of Fact Whether the Municipality Created the Road Defect Thereby Negating the Notice Requirement—Question of Fact Whether Plaintiff Sufficiently Identified Cause of Fall

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

ALTHOUGH BEING STRUCK BY A MISHIT BALL IS AN INHERENT RISK IN A GOLF GAME WHICH... LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE SHOULD HAVE...