You are here: / / THE BUILT-IN WATER HEATER WAS A “STRUCTURE” AND PLAINTIFF WAS...

THE BUILT-IN WATER HEATER WAS A “STRUCTURE” AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN “REPAIR” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1); A SHELF ROUTINELY USED AS A PLATFORM TO ACCESS THE BUILT-IN WATER HEATER COULD CONSTITUTE A DANGEROUS CONDITION WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 200 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined (1) the built-in water heater plaintiff was attempting to shut off was a “structure” within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1); (2) plaintiff (Eherts) was engaged in repair, a covered activity, not routine maintenance; and (3) the Labor Law 200 cause of action should not have been dismissed. The plaintiff determined it was important to turn off the water heater to prevent damage because of a suspected water main break. To access the built-in water heater it was necessary to step on suspended shelves. The shelf plaintiff stepped on gave way and he fell:

The situation here is not one of a stand-alone hot water heater accessible at floor level. To the contrary, the record shows that the hot water heater is situated above one of the store’s refrigerated units. The heater does not directly rest on top of the freezer, but on a platform suspended a few inches above the freezer by cables attached to the ceiling. The heater has a gas turnoff adjacent to it and an electric breaker switch on the actual heater. There is a shelf that runs along the top of the freezer unit that protrudes out about three feet from the freezer, approximately 12 feet above the floor surface. To access the heater, it was necessary to place a ladder against the shelf, and step over the shelf to reach the heater platform. In our view, this configuration constitutes a structure within the embrace of Labor Law § 240 (1)  … . …

The events here did not occur during a routine scheduled maintenance call. Instead, on New Year’s Day, Eherts was responding to an isolated and unexpected event, i.e., to address a low/no water pressure issue at the store caused by a municipal water main break. His direct response was to take preventative measures to, among other things, avoid damage to the hot water heater by shutting the system off. Eherts v Shoprite Supermarkets, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 06587, Third Dept 11-24-21

 

You might also like
Plaintiff Sufficiently Demonstrated the Possibility of Long-Arm Jurisdiction to Warrant Discovery
IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, EVIDENCE DEFENDANT FAILED TO SEE THE CAR HE COLLIDED WITH AND FAILED TO TIMELY BRAKE IS NOT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT FOR A CRIMINALLLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE CONVICTION; THE LEGAL INSUFFICIENCY ARGUMENT WAS PRESERVED BY A MOTION TO DISMISS BROUGHT AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE AND RULED ON AFTER THE DEFENDANT’S CASE; THE “LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT” VERSUS “AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE” STANDARDS EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).
Question of Fact Re: Implied Easement for Pipeline to Pond
PETITIONER WAITED EIGHT MONTHS WITHOUT RECEIVING A DECISION ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF HIS GRIEVANCE BEFORE FILING AN ARTICLE 78 CONTESTING THE DENIAL; PETITIONER WAS ENTITED TO THE “FUTILITY EXCEPTION” TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT HE EXHAUST ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BEFORE TURNING TO THE COURTS (THIRD DEPT).
THE REPEAL OF THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) DID NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY; THEREFORE THE STATUTE CONFERRED IMMUNITY ON DEFENDANT NURSING HOME RE: COVID-19 PRECAUTIONS; PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF THE COVID PRECAUTIONS TAKEN BY DEFENDANT NURSING HOME (THIRD DEPT).
EVEN IF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE INSURER AND CLAIMANT INSURANCE BROKER INCLUDED ALL THE STATUTORY FACTORS IN LABOR LAW 511, THE BROKER WILL BE CONSIDERED AN EMPLOYEE IF THE SERVICES ACTUALLY PROVIDED BY THE BROKER ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CONTRACT PROVISIONS (THIRD DEPT).
THE RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT FATHER NEGLECTED THE CHILD BASED ON MOTHER’S DRUG USE WHEN SHE WAS PREGNANT; ALTHOUGH FATHER DID NOT REPORT MOTHER’S DRUG USE TO HER PROBATON OFFICER, FATHER MADE EFFORTS TO INTERVENE RE: MOTHER’S DRUG USE DURING THE PREGNANCY (THIRD DEPT).
FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, AMEND A DISMISSAL ORDER FROM “WITHOUT PREJUDICE” TO “WITH PREJUDICE” (THIRD 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

PLAINTIFF STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR “GENDER-BIASED VERBAL ASSAULT,... WHEN THE BALANCES OF FIRST MORTGAGES ARE INCREASED WITH SECOND MORTGAGE LOANS...