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
“Assessor’s Formula” for Determining Property Tax Assessment for Golf Course Approved
COURT ORDER AUTHORIZING ACCESS TO DEFENDANT’S HISTORICAL CELL SITE LOCATION DATA INCLUDED AN EXPRESS FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE AND WAS THEREFORE THE EQUIVALENT OF A WARRANT (SECOND DEPT).
THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AND THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (NYCHHC); CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE PURPORTED TRANSFER BY DEED OF AN INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY TO A LIMITED LIABILTY COMPANY WAS NULL AND VOID FROM THE OUTSET BECAUSE THE LLC DID NOT EXIST WHEN THE DEED WAS EXECUTED; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR REFORMATION OF THE DEED NEVER STARTED RUNNING; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT THE TRANSFER TO THE LLC WAS NULL AND VOID (SECOND DEPT).
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES IN THIS STUDENT-PUSHES-STUDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
SETTLEMENT CONFESSIONS OF JUDGMENT WERE VALID AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
AN ORDER IS NOT ABANDONDED PURSUANT TO 22 NYCRR 202.48 UNLESS THE ORDER DIRECTS THAT IT BE SETTLED OR SUBMITTED FOR SIGNATURE.
A HEARING IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AND WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE ESTOPPED FROM CONTESTING SERVICE (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 © 2026 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...