You are here: / / INSTALLING A TV ON A WALL IS NOT AN ACTIVITY COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1)...

INSTALLING A TV ON A WALL IS NOT AN ACTIVITY COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).

​The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing the Labor law 240(1) cause of action should have been granted. Plaintiff fell from an A-frame ladder while attempting to install a television on a wall in a doctor’s office:

Labor Law § 240(1) states that all contractors, owners, and their agents must supply protective equipment to laborers who are engaged in the “erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building” … . As such, “[t]o successfully assert a cause of action under Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must establish that he or she was injured during ‘the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure'” … . “[T]he term ‘altering’ in section 240(1) ‘requires making a significant physical change to the configuration or composition of the building or structure'” … . This definition excludes “‘routine maintenance'” and “‘decorative modifications'” … ,

The defendants established that the plaintiff was not engaged in any of the enumerated activities under Labor Law § 240(1). Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, affixing a bracket to a wall so that a television might be mounted on it did not make a “significant physical change to the configuration or composition of the building or structure”  … . Saitta v Marsah Props., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 07467, Second Dept 12-28-22

Practice Point: Installing a TV on a wall is not one of the activities covered by Labor Law 240(1).

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF BANK SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING PARTIES AND TO EXTEND THE REACH OF THE ACTION TO THE ENTIRE PREMISES WHICH HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY ADVERSE POSSESSION (SECOND DEPT).
GOODYEAR DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT AFFILIATIONS WITH NEW YORK TO CONFER JURISDICTION IN THIS TIRE-MALFUNCTION OUT-OF-STATE ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
INSURER’S FRAUDULENT INCORPORATION DEFENSE TO ITS REFUSAL TO PAY NO-FAULT BENEFITS TO A CORPORATION RUN BY NON-PHYSICIANS WAS PROPERLY PRESENTED TO THE JURY, DEPOSITION TESTIMONY IN WHICH NON-PARTIES INVOKED THE FIFTH AMENDMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN READ TO THE JURY.
Service Upon Employee Did Not Confer Personal Jurisdiction Over Corporation
DENIAL OF YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION (SECOND DEPT).
NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE FLORIDA CHILD SUPPORT ORDER, EVEN THOUGH FATHER’S CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION HAD TERMINATED BY THE TERMS OF THE ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, INCREASED A PENALTY TO WHICH THE PARTIES HAD AGREED IN A SO-ORDERED STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS REQUEST TO WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA; MATTER REMITTED FOR THAT PURPOSE AND A REPORT TO THE APPELLATE COURT (SECOND DEPT).

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

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS PROCEEDING THROUGH AN INTERSECTION WHEN THE CAR IN WHICH... ​ BY THE TERMS OF HIS LEASE, PLAINTIFF WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SNOW AND ICE REMOVAL...