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
Search of Camera in Possession of the Police for Illegal Images Was Valid Even though Underlying Warrant Was Issued In a Case Closed Before the Search
SKIN COLOR RECOGNIZED AS A VALID BASIS FOR A BATSON CHALLENGE TO THE PEREMPTORY STRIKE OF A JUROR.
“Continuity” Element of a Criminal Enterprise Explained—Substantive Arguments Re: the Erroneous Use of “And” Instead of “Or” In the Jury Instructions and the “Ineffective Assistance” Stemming from the Failure to Object to the Instructions–the Majority Held the Error Was Not Preserved and the Seriousness of the Error Was Not So Clear-Cut as to Implicate Ineffective Assistance–the Dissent Argued the Jury-Instruction Error Was Preserved and Was Reversible
MERE USE OF ANOTHER’S PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION, LIKE A CREDIT CARD NUMBER, ESTABLISHES A VIOLATION OF NEW YORK’S IDENTITY THEFT STATUTE, THERE IS NO NEED TO PROVE THE DEFENDANT ASSUMED THE VICTIM’S IDENTITY IN SOME ADDITIONAL WAY (CT APP).
Village Properly Withdrew Its Defense and Indemnification of Officials When Officials Refused a Reasonable Settlement Offer
THE DIVISION OF MARITAL PROPERTY PURSUANT TO A DIVORCE DOES NOT RENDER ONE FORMER SPOUSE THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR OF THE OTHER, THEREFORE A JUDGMENT DEBTOR WHO DOCKETS A JUDGMENT DOES NOT HAVE PRIORITY PURSUANT TO CPLR 5203 OVER A JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DOCKETED (CT APP).
Pre-Litigation Statements Made by an Attorney (Here In a Cease and Desist Letter) Are Protected by Qualified, Not Absolute, Privilege—Such Statements Are Privileged If Not Motivated by Malice and If Pertinent to Anticipated Litigation
BASED UPON THE POLICY LANGUAGE, AN ALL SUMS ALLOCATION AND VERTICAL EXHAUSTION APPLY TO EXCESS INSURANCE POLICIES IN THIS ASBESTOS INJURY ACTION.

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...