You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS DOING REPAIR WORK OR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE...

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS DOING REPAIR WORK OR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether defendant had notice of the dangerous condition created by oil dripping on the floor (Labor Law 200), and whether plaintiff was engaged in repair (covered by Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6)) rather than routine maintenance (not covered) when working on the garage door:

There was evidence in the record that automotive services were being performed on the defendants’ premises by its employees, including changing oil filters and disposing the used oil filters into oil drums, and that oil was dripping from a spigot attached to a barrel close to the location of the plaintiff’s accident. This evidence raises a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants created a dangerous or defective condition, or had actual or constructive notice of such a condition without remedying it within a reasonable time … . …

… [T]he injured plaintiff testified at his deposition that when the accident occurred, he was attempting to remove a bearing plate in order to replace a broken spring on the garage door. He also testified that one of the bolts of the bearing plate was stripped, so he had to widen the hole so that it would accept another bolt. …

Labor Law § 240(1) applies where an employee is engaged “in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure,” but does not apply to “routine maintenance” … . Here, the evidence raises a triable issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff was involved in a repair or routine maintenance at the time of the accident … .

Labor Law § 241(6) applies to construction, excavation, or demolition work. Construction work is defined in 12 NYCRR 23-1.4 as including the “repair, maintenance, painting or moving of buildings or other structures.” Thus, there are triable issues of fact as to whether Labor Law § 241(6) was violated in this matter … . Nusio v Legend Autorama, Ltd., 2023 NY Slip Op 04385, Second Dept 8-23-23

Practice Point: Routine maintenance is not covered by Labor Law 240(1) or 241(6) but repair work is. Here plaintiff was working on the garage door mechanism which required replacement of a stripped bolt. There was a question of fact on the repair versus routine-maintenance question.

 

You might also like
“NOTWITHSTANDING” CLAUSE IN THE ADDENDUM TO THE NOTE CONTROLS, THE ADDENDUM REQUIRED THAT THE MONTHLY PAYMENTS ON THE NOTE START BEFORE THE DATE DESCRIBED IN THE NOTE ITSELF (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO PLAINTIFF’S USE OF DEFENDANTS’ HOVER BOARD IN DEFENDANTS’ DRIVEWAY; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; I.E., THE NOTICE MUST BE MAILED IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE WITH NO OTHER MATERIALS, AND THE NOTICE MUST BE SENT SEPARATELY TO EACH BORROWER (SECOND DEPT).
CITY NOT LIABLE FOR A DOG BITE AT CITY ANIMAL SHELTER 2ND DEPT.
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD AND DEFENDANTS FAILED TO ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ON THE DUTY OF CARE AND KNOWLEDGE ELEMENTS OF A SLIP AND FALL CASE; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER AUTOMOBILE LIFT WAS INTENDED TO BE USED WITHOUT A PROTECTIVE DEVICE AND WHETHER WARNINGS WERE ADEQUATE.
DEFENSE ATTORNEY TOOK A POSITION ADVERSE TO DEFENDANT STATING THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR DEFENDANT’S PRO SE MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION WITH NEW DEFENSE COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
ONE DEFENDANT BREACHED A CONTRACT; THE OTHER DEFENDANT TORTIOUSLY INTERFERED WITH PLAINTIFF’S PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS RELATIONS; THE JURY AWARDED SEPARATE DAMAGE-AMOUNTS FOR EACH DEFENDANT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD BOTH DEFENDANTS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR THE COMBINED AMOUNT OF DAMAGES (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

THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (RPTL), NOT THE CPLR, CONTROLS THE COMMENCEMENT OF... A HEARING IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED IN...