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
IN THIS CASE INVOLVING A FATAL CAR ACCIDENT WHEN DEFENDANT WAS APPARENTLY “RACING” THE OTHER DRIVER, THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE GRAND JURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE MANSLAUGHTER SECOND DEGREE CHARGE; THE INDICTMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE NEGLECT FINDING (SECOND DEPT).
Mother Did Not Stipulate to Order of Reference; Therefore Referee Only Had Power to Hear and Report
EVEN CRIMINAL SLURS ARE NOT ACTIONABLE AS DEFAMATION IF THEY ARE PURE OPINION; HERE DEFENDANT’S TWEET ACCUSING PLAINTIFF OF MAKING “THREATS” WAS NOT ACTIONABLE (SECOND DEPT).
Delay In Retaining Expert Did Not Warrant Preclusion of Expert’s Testimony
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE WHEEL STOP, WHICH HAD BEEN MOVED FROM ITS POSITION AT THE TOP OF THE PARKING SPACE, WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (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

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...