You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER OCCURRED DURING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE...

PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER OCCURRED DURING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ACTIONABLE PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly dismissed because plaintiff was engaged in routine maintenance at the time of his fall from a ladder:

“Generally, courts have held that work constitutes routine maintenance where the work involves ‘replacing components that require replacement in the course of normal wear and tear'”  … .

… [T]he defendants established … that the replacement of the condenser fan motor, which, according to the deposition testimony of the injured plaintiff’s employer, weighed approximately 1½ pounds and was the kind of part that required replacement “all the time,” constituted routine maintenance and not repairing, or any of the other enumerated activities under Labor Law § 240(1) … . “The work here involved replacing [a] component[ ] that require[s] replacement in the course of normal wear and tear” … . Stockton v H&E Biffer Enters. No. 2, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04568, Second Dept 7-28-21

 

You might also like
A CERTIFICATE OF INURANCE NAMING A PARTY AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED IS EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS A CONTRACT TO THAT EFFECT, BUT IT IS NOT CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF A CONTRACT AND WILL NOT SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE (SECOND DEPT).
CONTRACT PROVISION ABOUT ALLOWED USES OF THE DIOCESE’S PROPERTY BY A CATHOLIC SCHOOL WAS AMBIGUOUS, DIOCESE’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SEEKING DAMAGES FOR BREACH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS GROUNDWATER POLLUTION CASE, THE POLLUTION EXCLUSION IN THE INSURERS’ POLICIES APPLIED AND THE INSURERS ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE INSURED OIL COMPANY (SECOND DEPT).
SENDING THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE TO THE TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE VIOLATED RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
IN A “SMOOTH, SLIPPERY, SHINY FLOOR” SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE FACT THAT THE FLOOR WAS WAXED DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE NEGLIGENCE; THERE MUST BE EVIDENCE THE WAX WAS NEGLIGENTLY APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).
At Will Employee Can Not Use “Fraudulent Inducement” Theory Re: Acceptance-of-Employment Offer.
DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF’S VEHICLE STOPPED SUDDENLY FOR NO APPARENT REASON DID NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, IF ANY, COULD OFFSET THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
Late Motion to Amend Answer Should Have Been Granted, No Prejudice

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

IN THIS RESENTENCING PROCEEDING, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED DEFENDANT’S... DEFENDANT TORTIOUSLY INTERFERED WITH PLAINTIFF’S CONTRACT BUT DID NOT...