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
THE JUDGE DID NOT FOLLOW THE REQUIRED PROCEDURE FOR FINDING NEGLECT ON A GROUND NOT ALLEGED IN THE PETITION; TO DO SO, THE JUDGE MUST AMEND THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PETITION TO CONFORM TO THE PROOF AND GIVE THE RESPONDENT TIME TO RESPOND TO THE AMENDED ALLEGATIONS; NEITHER WAS DONE; PETITION DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ACQUITTED OF MENACING AT THE FIRST TRIAL BUT THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE MENACING CHARGES WAS ALLOWED IN THE SECOND TRIAL; THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE PRECLUDED PRESENTATION OF THAT EVIDENCE IN THE SECOND TRIAL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER CAN BE APPLIED TO DISMISS A KIDNAPPING CHARGE EVEN IF THE LESSER OFFENSE IS NOT CHARGED (FOURTH DEPT).
COUNTY COURT MISAPPREHENDED THE LAW WHEN IT AFFIRMED TOWN COURT’S ORDER TO EUTHANIZE RESPONDENT’S DOG; MATTER REMITTED TO TOWN COURT (FOURTH DEPT).
Pedigree Question “Where Do You Reside,” Under the Circumstances, Was Designed to Elicit an Incriminating Response, the Answer, Therefore, Should Have Been Suppressed; New Trial on Possessory Counts Ordered
Arbitrator’s Misapplication of Law Is Not Reviewable by a Court
A CRUCIAL DOCUMENT SUBMITTED TO PROVE THE AMOUNT OF A MEDICAID LIEN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS A BUSINESS RECORD; THE DOCUMENT WAS NOT CERTIFIED BY AN EMPLOYEE FAMILIAR WITH THE BUSINESS PRACTICES OF THE ENTITY WHICH PROVIDED THE DATA COLLECTED IN THE DOCUMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
Question of Fact Raised About Owner’s Knowledge of Presence of Lead Paint

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...