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
THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT INTENTIONALLY AIDED THE PRINCIPALS IN THE KIDNAPPING; THE EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTIVELY POSSESSED A WEAPON, HOWEVER, WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (FOURTH DEPT).
Questions About Whether Trial Judge Properly Handled Jury Notes Sent Out During Deliberations Required Reconstruction Hearing
DEFENDANT, AN OUT OF POSSESSION LESSEE, WAS NOT AN ‘OWNER’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) OR 241 (6) AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
PLENARY ACTION ALLEGING ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT DURING A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING PROPERLY BROUGHT UNDER JUDICIARY LAW 487; PRIOR MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS DID NOT PRECLUDE JUDICIARY LAW 487 ACTION.
THE MOTION COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DEEMING PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ADMITTED BECAUSE DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT A COUNTER STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS (FOURTH DEPT). ​
POLICE OFFICER’S SENDING A TEXT TO DEFENDANT’S PHONE FROM A NUMBER USED TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE VICTIM, AND OBSERVING THE ARRIVAL OF A TEXT ON DEFENDANT’S PHONE SHORTLY THEREAFTER, DID NOT VIOLATE THE US SUPREME COURT’S RULING IN RILEY REQUIRING A WARRANT FOR A CELL PHONE SEARCH (FOURTH DEPT).
AT THE FRYE HEARING, THE PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE RESULTS OF DNA ANALYSIS USING THE STRMIX DNA ANALYSIS PROGRAM (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE/PUBLIC HEALTH LAW ACTION AGAINST A NURSING HOME, DEFENDANTS’ EXPERTS’ OPINIONS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SUBMISSION OF DECEDENT’S MEDICAL RECORDS, RENDERING THE OPINIONS SPECULATIVE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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...