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
PEOPLE VS CATU, WHICH INVALIDATED GUILTY PLEAS WHERE THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION WAS NOT DISCUSSED, SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY.
ALTHOUGH THE MURDER WAS A NECESSARY ELEMENT OF THE BURGLARY CHARGE, THE PEOPLE JUSTIFIED CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES BY PRESENTING PROOF THE TWO CRIMES ENCOMPASSED DISTINCT ACTS.
A LIENHOLDER NONPARTY TO AN ACTION THAT RESULTED IN A FEE AWARD TO A DEBTOR MAY SUE TO RECOVER THOSE FEES WHERE THE LIENHOLDER WAS NEITHER JOINED NOR REQUIRED TO INTERVENE IN THAT ACTION (CT APP).
PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATIONS ARE TREATED LIKE THE STATE FOR DETERMINING THEIR CAPACITY TO CHALLENGE A STATUTE, APPLICABLE DUE PROCESS STANDARD IS WHETHER THE STATUTE WAS ENACTED AS A REASONABLE RESPONSE TO REMEDY AN INJUSTICE, AT ISSUE IS A STATUTE ALLOWING LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM AGAINST BATTERY PARK CITY AUTHORITY TO BE FILED IN A 9-11 CLEANUP PERSONAL INJURY ACTION (CT APP).
SYRACUSE NOISE ORDINANCE PROHIBITING MUSIC LOUD ENOUGH TO BE HEARD 50 FEET FROM A PERSON’S CAR IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE.
NO PROOF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK WAS WITHIN DEFENDANT’S REACH WHEN IT WAS SEIZED AND SEARCHED; THEREFORE THE SEARCH WAS NOT A VALID SEARCH INCIDENT TO ARREST (CT APP).
Waiver of Appeal Encompasses Sentencing Court’s Denial of Youthful Offender Status
DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGES TO RESTRICTIONS ON VOIR DIRE, HIS ARGUMENT A PRISON SENTENCE DURING COVID VIOLATED THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, AND HIS CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES TO NEW YORK’S WEAPONS-POSSESSION REGIME, REJECTED; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE PRESUMPTION OF AN INTENT TO USE AN UNLICENSED WEAPON IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS RELATED TO GUN CONTROL AND JUSTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (CT APP).

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