You are here: / / THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN REPAIR AS...

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN REPAIR AS OPPOSED TO ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OF THE AIR CONDITIONER WHEN HE WAS INJURED; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DIMSISS THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED; HOWEVER THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMIISED BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INVOLVED IN CONSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court determined defendant’s (Chase’s) motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly denied but Chase’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should have been granted. There was a question of fact whether plaintiff was engaged in routine maintenance repair of the air conditioner. But plaintiff was not involved in construction of the building, so Labor Law 241 (6) did not apply:

Chase’s own evidentiary submissions, including the injured plaintiff’s deposition testimony, raised triable issues of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff was engaged in repairs or routine maintenance at the time the accident occurred. Although it is undisputed that an outside party was to perform the ultimate repair to the defective division plate, the injured plaintiff testified at his deposition that his supervisor instructed him to perform a temporary repair to the division plate in order to make the air conditioning unit function. Thus, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff’s activity constituted a repair of the unit within the scope of Labor Law § 240(1) … . …

“Although the applicability of Labor Law § 241(6) is not limited to building sites, the work in which the plaintiff was engaged must have affected the structural integrity of the building or structure or have been an integral part of the construction of a building or structure” … . Cantalupo v Arco Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 02783, Second Dept 5-5-21

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH OPEN TRAPDOOR IN LEASED PREMISES, DOOR WAS NOT DEFECTIVE, NO BASIS FOR LIABILITY OF BUILDING OWNER.
FAILURE TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS AT THE 50-H HEARING REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THIS FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
ANONYMOUS TIP ALLEGING SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR BY MEN WEARING HOODIES GOING IN AND OUT OF A U-HAUL TRUCK DID NOT JUSTIFY PULLING OVER A U-HAUL TRUCK DRIVEN BY A MAN WEARING A HOODIE, WEAPON FOUND IN THE TRUCK SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY AN INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSE OF ACTION CANNOT BE BROUGHT AGAINST A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY (SECOND DEPT).
RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF INDOOR ROCK CLIMBER INVALID PURSUANT TO GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW, COMPLAINT ALLEGED INJURY CAUSED BY CONCEALED DEFECT WHICH WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
MORTGAGES ISSUED BY NYS FEDERAL CREDIT UNIONS ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM NYS MORTGAGE RECORDING TAX (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT ALLEGE OR DEMONSTRATE IN THE OPPOSING PAPERS THAT ANY OF THE ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS APPLIED TO DEFENDANT SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACTOR IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON THE FLOOR, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED.

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

THE ESTATE WAS A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; SUPREME COURT SHOULD... THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW PROHIBITION OF SEEKING REIMBURSEMENT OF MEDICAL...