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
ONCE THE APPELLATE DIVISION DETERMINED A SORA RISK FACTOR DID NOT APPLY, BRINGING DEFENDANT’S RISK ASSESSMENT FROM A LEVEL THREE TO A LEVEL TWO, THE APPELLATE COURT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO REMIT THE MATTER TO COUNTY COURT TO CONSIDER, FOR THE FIRST TIME, WHETHER AN UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS WARRANTED (CT APP).
PLAINTIFF WIRED $300,000 TO AN ACCOUNT IN DEFENDANT BANK WHICH HAD BEEN SET UP BY A FRAUDSTER TO DEFRAUD PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PLEAD A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH DEFENDANT BANK WHICH IS REQUIRED BEFORE A DUTY (OWED TO PLAINTIFF) TO ENFORCE ITS ANTI-FRAUD PROCEDURES ARISES; THE COMPLAINT THEREFORE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (CT APP).
THE POLICE OFFICER’S WITNESSING THE EXCHANGE OF AN UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A DRUG TRANSACTION ARREST; BECAUSE THE RECORD EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION, THE MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WAS BEYOND FURTHER REVIEW BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).
PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT APPLY, SUPPRESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
8-Hour Break in 49 ½ Hour Interrogation Did Not Render Confession Voluntary
Introduction of Statements Made to Police In Absence of Counsel When Defendant Was Represented by Counsel on a Another Matter Deemed Harmless Error
HERE A WITNESS TO THE SHOOTING IDENTIFIED THE DEFENDANT AS THE SHOOTER FOR THE FIRST TIME AT TRIAL; UNDER THE FACTS, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT PREJUDICED; THE COURT OFFERED GUIDANCE ON HOW TO HANDLE OR AVOID THE SITUATION (CT APP).
TEACHER WITH TENURE WHO RESIGNED AND WAS THEN REHIRED WAS NOT REHIRED WITH TENURE; THE TEACHER FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE REGULATION REQUIRING A WRITTEN WITHDRAWAL OF THE RESIGNATION SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CHANCELLOR.

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...