You are here: / / THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED CEILING TILES...

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED CEILING TILES WAS REPAIR, COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6), OR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, WHICH IS NOT COVERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether plaintiff, who was replacing damaged ceiling tiles when he fell, was doing repair work covered by Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6), or routine cleaning, which is not covered:

“In determining whether a particular activity constitutes ‘repairing,’ courts are careful to distinguish between repairs and routine maintenance” … , since “routine maintenance” work performed “in a nonconstruction, nonrenovation context” is not a covered activity … .

… [T]he City failed to establish … that the tasks [plaintiff] was performing at the time of the accident were associated with routine maintenance, which is not a covered activity under the Labor Law, rather than repair work, which may be covered, even if it was not part of a larger renovation project … . Nooney v Queensborough Pub. Lib., 2023 NY Slip Op 00327, Second Dept 1-25-23

Practice Point: Routine maintenance is not covered by Labor Law 240(1) or 241(6) but repair is. Here there was a question of fact whether replacing damaged ceiling tiles was repair or routine maintenance.

 

You might also like
Failure to Inform Defendant of His Right to Counsel for an Appeal Taken by the People Deprived Defendant of that Right
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED AN ACCOUNTING BEFORE DETERMINING A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED AN ACCOUNTING (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH ARTICLE 3 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT PROHIBITS CONSIDERATION OF A NEW YORK JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL ASSESSEMENT, CONSIDERATION OF A NEW JERSEY JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ADJUDICATION IS NOT PROHIBITED (SECOND DEPT).
Allegation that Town Planted a Tree Near a Sidewalk and Did Not Maintain the Roots, Thereby Creating a Dangerous Condition, Is an Allegation of “Nonfeasance,” not an “Affirmative Act of Negligence”
DEFENDANT, AS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD, WAS NOT LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE PROPERTY; PLAINTIFF’S REFERENCES TO UNPLEADED CAUSES OF ACTION (LABOR LAW 240(1) AND LABOR LAW 241(6)) IN THE BILL OF PARTICULARS WERE UNSUPPORTED; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Rear-End Collision Warranted Summary Judgment on Liability
FAILURE TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE SORA HEARING REQUIRED REVERSAL.
FURTHER LAWSUITS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE PROPERLY PROHIBITED BY THE COURT.

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

TOWNHOUSES PURCHASED BY A NOT-FOR-PROFIT SCHOOL TO HOUSE FACULTY ARE TAX EXEMPT... THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SCHOOL PLAYGROUND...