You are here: / / THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED PLAINTIFF WAS DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE WHICH WAS...

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED PLAINTIFF WAS DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE WHICH WAS NOT PART OF A CONSTRUCTION OR RENOVATION PROJECT WHEN HE WAS ELECTROCUTED AND FELL FROM A LADDER; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION WERE DISMISSED; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED PLAINTIFF WAS “CLEANING” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1) AND WAS DOING CONSTRUCTION OR RENOVATION WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241(6) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the work plaintiff was doing was not covered by Labor Law 240(1) or 241(6). Primosch v Peroxychem, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04285, Fourth Dept 8-11-23. The Fourth Department concluded plaintiff’s work was routine maintenance, not cleaning covered by Labor Law 240(10, and was not done in connection with construction or renovation work. In a separate decision which incorporated the first, two justices disagreed in a dissent, finding that plaintiff’s work was “cleaning” covered by Labor Law 240(1) and was part of construction or renovation work. The dissent lays out in some detail the proof requirements for “cleaning” within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1). Apparently plaintiff was on a ladder cleaning electrical equipment when he was electrocuted and fell from the ladder. Primosch v Peroxychem, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04286, Fourth Dept 8-11-23

Practice Point: The dissent includes a detailed explanation of what constitutes “cleaning” within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1).

 

You might also like
EVIDENCE SUPPORTING UPWARD DEPARTURE WAS SPECULATIVE AND DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL CLEAR AND CONVINCING.
NO WARRANT NEEDED FOR CELL SITE LOCATION INFORMATION, THE TERM ‘PERSON’ IN THE ARSON SECOND STATUTE REFERS TO A LIVING PERSON, BECAUSE THE VICTIMS WERE NOT ALIVE WHEN THE FIRE WAS SET, THE CONVICTION WAS REDUCED TO ARSON THIRD (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THAT EVEN IF DEFENDANT WAS ILLEGALLY FRISKED AND DETAINED OUTSIDE OF HIS VEHICLE, THE DEPUTY’S SEEING COCAINE ON THE DRIVER’S SEAT PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE SEARCH OF THE VEHICLE; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE OBSERVATION OF THE DRUGS WAS A PRODUCT OF THE ILLEGAL FRISK AND DETENTION OF THE DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL AND DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
IN ORDER FOR THE ARREST IN CORTLAND COUNTY ON A JEFFERSON COUNTY WARRANT TO BE VALID THE WARRANT MUST BE ENDORSED BY A JUDGE IN CORTLAND COUNTY BEFORE THE ARREST; HERE THE WARRANT WAS ENDORSED AFTER THE ARREST (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT COERCED INTO PLEADING GUILTY; THE JUDGE’S DESCRIBING THE POSSIBLE RANGE OF SENTENCING, PLEADING GUILTY TO AVOID A HARSHER SENTENCE, THE JUDGE’S COMMENTING ON THE STRENGTH OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE, AND COUNSEL’S TELLING DEFENDANT THE SENTENCE WOULD LIKELY BE HARSHER AFTER TRIAL, DID NOT AMOUNT TO “COERCION” (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO FILE A SUPPRESSION MOTION; THE FAILURE “INFECTED” THE GUILTY PLEA BECAUSE SUPPRESSION COULD HAVE LED TO DISMISSAL OF SOME OF THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
A COURT’S POWER TO VACATE AN ARBITRATOR’S AWARD IS EXTREMELY LIMITED; AN ARBITRATOR’S INTERPRETATION OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT CANNOT BE REVIEWED UNLESS IT IS “COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL;” HERE THE ARBITRATOR’S AWARD UPHOLDING THE SUSPENSION OF PETITIONER-DENTAL-HYGIENIST FOR HER FAILURE TO OBTAIN A COVID-19 VACCINE WAS CONFIRMED (FOURTH 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

THE GRANDPARENTS’ PETITION FOR VISITATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED... ALTHOUGH THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT TO DEMONSTRATE...