You are here: / / DECEDENT’S WORK AS A WELDER NOT A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW...

DECEDENT’S WORK AS A WELDER NOT A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a one-sentence memorandum, determined the plaintiff was not engaged in an activity covered by Labor Law 240 (1) when he was injured:

Decedent’s work as a welder during the “normal manufacturing process” of fabricating rotor components for air preheaters did not involve “erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing” of a building or structure (Jock v Fien , 80 NY2d 965, 968 [1992]; Labor Law § 240 [1]).  Preston v APCH, Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 01000, Ct App 2-13-20

 

You might also like
WHERE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IS A BUSINESS ENTITY, HERE BLOOMBERG L.P., AN OWNER OR OFFICER OF THE COMPANY, HERE MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, IS NOT AN EMPLOYER WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; THE EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION AGAINST MICHAEL BLOOMBERG WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (CT APP).
Trial Judge’s Participation in Readbacks Not Mode of Proceedings Error
Ineffective Assistance On Suppression Issues—Case Sent Back
ALLEGATIONS OF SEX OFFENSES OF WHICH DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED AT TRIAL PROPERLY USED IN THE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATION (CT APP).
STATUTE REDUCING HEALTH BENEFITS FOR STATE EMPLOYEES DID NOT VIOLATE THE JUDICIAL COMPENSATION CLAUSE OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION (CT APP).
THE MAJORITY HELD SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ALLOWED PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AFTER THE COMPLAINT HAD BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION BECAUSE COUNTERCLAIMS WERE STILL BEFORE THE COURT (CT APP).
COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE IMPANELED AN ANONYMOUS JURY (CT APP).
In Disability Discrimination Suits Brought Under the NYS and NYC Human Rights Law, to Prevail on Summary Judgment, the Employer Must Demonstrate It Engaged in a Good Faith Interactive Process to Consider a Proposed Accommodation

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

ORDERS ISSUED WHEN THE STAY PURSUANT TO CPLR 321(c) WAS IN EFFECT, DUE TO THE... DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION SEEKING OVERTIME PAY IN FEDERAL COURT ON THE GROUND...