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
DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE REFEREE’S REPORT WAS BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED; PROOF OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT WAS BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS FOR WHICH NO FOUNDATION WAS LAID; THE MOTION TO CONFIRM THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE NOTICE SENT TO THE BORROWERS IN 2012 WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ACCELERATE THE MORTGAGE DEBT; THEREFORE THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED WITH AN ACTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MALPRACTICE WAS COVERED BY INSURANCE (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO ADDRESS EVERY ELEMENT OF THE THEORIES OF RECOVERY ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT, I.E., COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE AND RES IPSA LOQUITUR, REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ALLOW FATHER TO REPRESENT HIMSELF IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
BY ARGUING HE DID NOT KNOW THE WEAPON AND AMMUNITION WERE IN THE TRUCK HE WAS DRIVING, DEFENDANT PUT HIS STATE OF MIND IN ISSUE; THEREFORE THE EVIDENCE HE HAD TWICE BEFORE BEEN IN THE POSSESSION OF FIREARMS, ONCE ON A PLANE AND ONCE IN A VEHICLE, WAS ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX (SECOND DEPT).
Family Court Should Have Granted Change-of-Custody Petition

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...