You are here: / / WHETHER “CLEANING” IS A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1)...

WHETHER “CLEANING” IS A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE CLEANING WORK IS “ROUTINE;” “ROUTINE” CLEANING WORK IS NOT COVERED (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determine plaintiff should not have been awarded summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action and defendant’s summary judgment motion should have been granted. The issue was whether plaintiff was injured doing “cleaning” work covered by the Labor Law. The Court of Appeals held plaintiff was doing “routine” work, which therefore did not qualify as “cleaning” under Labor Law 240(1). The facts were not explained:

Labor Law § 240 (1) requires certain contractors and property owners to provide adequate safety devices when workers engage in particular tasks involving elevation-related risks. To recover under section 240 (1) for an injury caused by a failure to provide such safety devices, plaintiffs must first show that they were engaged in one of that section’s enumerated activities including, among others, “cleaning.” To determine whether an activity is “cleaning” within the meaning of the statute, courts apply a four-factor analysis (see Soto v J. Crew Inc., 21 NY3d 562, 568 [2013]). The first factor considers whether the work is “routine, in the sense that it is the type of job that occurs on a daily, weekly or other relatively-frequent and recurring basis as part of the ordinary maintenance and care of commercial premises” (id. [emphasis added]). This factor does not involve a fact-specific assessment of a plaintiff’s regular tasks—it instead asks whether the type of work would be expected to recur with relative frequency as part of the ordinary maintenance and care of a commercial property (see id. at 569).

Here, plaintiff’s work was “routine” within the meaning of the first factor, which therefore weighs against concluding that he was “cleaning.” “[V]iewed in totality,” the Soto factors do not “militate in favor of placing the task” in the category of “cleaning” (id. at 568-569). Healy v EST Downtown, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 02836, CtApp 4-28-22

​Practice Point: Injury while “cleaning” is not covered under Labor Law 240(1) if it is “routine.”

 

You might also like
Petitioner Did Not Demonstrate Diminution in Value Related to Presence of Lead Paint Re: Tax Assessments
THE DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL CAN BE APPLIED TO BYPASS THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS IF THE RESULT OF ENFORCING THE STATUTE WOULD BE UNCONSCIONABLE, THE RESULT HERE WAS NOT UNCONSCIONABLE. ​
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR AGREEING TO ANNOTATIONS ON THE VERDICT SHEET WHICH SERVED TO DISTINGUISH COUNTS ALLEGING SIMILAR BEHAVIOR IN THIS AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT CASE, COUNTY COURT REVERSED (CT APP).
Defendant Entitled to a Hearing on His Motion to Vacate His Conviction/Defense Counsel’s Failure to Move to Suppress Statements, to Challenge Search Warrants, to Request Discovery and to Object to the Conduct of the Prosecutor Raised Questions of Effective Assistance
THE UNIVERSAL LIFE INSURANCE POLICY AT ISSUE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO INSURANCE LAW 3203(A)(2) WHICH REQUIRES A PROPORTIONAL REFUND WHEN THE INSURED DIES DURING THE PREMIUM PERIOD (CT APP).
Destruction of Video that May Have Been Relevant to the Defense Required Adverse Inference Charge
THE LIFE INSURANCE POLICY REQUIRED WRITTEN NOTICE OF ANY ASSIGNMENT OF THE POLICY; THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE PRECLUDED THE ASSIGNEE FROM BRINGING A CLAIM UNDER THE POLICY AGAINST THE INSURER (CT APP).
SORA COURT PROPERLY REJECTED DOWNWARD DEPARTURE BECAUSE CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD DID NOT INVOLVE A SEXUAL OFFENSE.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE APPELLATE DIVISION INITIALLY REVERSED SUPREME COURT AND HELD PLAINTIFF WAS... PETITIONER WAS CHARGED WITH MAKING A COMMENT TO A FELLOW EMPLOYEE AT A SOCIAL...