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
TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS BASED UPON ABANDONMENT REVERSED, AGENCY DID NOT MEET ITS BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING FATHER, WHO WAS INCARCERATED, FAILED TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE CHILD DURING THE SIX MONTHS PRIOR TO THE PROCEEDING (CT APP).
DEFENDANT, A PAIN MANAGEMENT PHYSICIAN WHO OPERATED A “PILL MILL,” WAS PROPERLY CONVICTED OF RECKLESS MANSLAUGHTER IN THE DEATHS OF TWO PATIENTS WHO DIED OF OPIOID OVERDOSE (CT APP).
PURSUANT TO THE “INTERNAL AFFAIRS” DOCTRINE, PLAINTIFF, A NEW YORK CORPORATION AND BENEFICIAL OWNER OF SHARES IN BARCLAYS, AN ENGLISH CORPORATION, DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING A DERIVATIVE SUIT ON BEHALF OF BARCLAYS AGAINST OFFICERS AND MANAGERS OF A NEW YORK AFFILIATE OF BARCLAYS IN NEW YORK (CT APP).
THE 20% VACANCY INCREASE SHOULD BE INCLUDED WHEN CALCULATING THE LEGAL REGULATED RENT TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN APARTMENT HAS REACHED THE $2000 THRESHOLD IN THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW (CT APP).
USING ANOTHER’S CREDIT CARD ACCOUNT NUMBER TO MAKE PURCHASES, WITHOUT PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE CARD, SUPPORTS A GRAND LARCENY CONVICTION (CT APP).
THE PARTIES DID NOT AGREE THAT THE INITIAL ‘PARTIAL’ ARBITRATION AWARD WAS A FINAL AWARD; THEREFORE THE ARBITRATORS HAD THE AUTHORITY TO REVISIT THE MATTER AND ISSUE A VALID FINAL AWARD (CT APP).
HERE THE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION’S (OCA’S) BLANKET ASSERTION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE RE: THE FOIL REQUEST FOR COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN OCA AND JUDGES WAS REJECTED; ALTHOUGH UPON REMAND THE PRIVILEGE MAY BE SHOWN TO APPLY TO INIDVIDUAL, IDENTIFIED DOCUMENTS, THE OCA DID NOT ESTABLISH AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP WITH ALL THE JUDGES SUCH THAT A BLANKET ASSERTION OF THE PRIVILEGE WAS APPROPRIATE (CT APP).
A SENTENCING COURT MAY REQUIRE A DEFENDANT, AS A CONDITION OF PROBATION, TO PAY FOR ELECTRONIC MONITORING, IF A DEFENDANT CLAIMS AN INABILITY TO PAY, A HEARING MUST BE HELD TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE TO INCARCERATION IS APPROPRIATE AND, IF NOT, THE DEFENDANT MAY BE SENTENCED TO PRISON (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...