You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS REPAIRING THE FLASHING ON THE ROOF, NOT DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE,...
,

PLAINTIFF WAS REPAIRING THE FLASHING ON THE ROOF, NOT DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, AT THE TIME HE WAS INJURED ENTITLING HIM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was performing repairs, not routine maintenance, when he was injured, entitling him to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action:

“Delineating between routine maintenance and repairs is frequently a close, fact-driven issue . . . , and that distinction depends upon whether the item being worked on was inoperable or malfunctioning prior to the commencement of the work . . . , and whether the work involved the replacement of components damaged by normal wear and tear” … . Here, the testimony submitted by plaintiffs established, and the court found, that the rubber flashing was malfunctioning and inoperable prior to replacement and that the work being performed by plaintiff at the time of the accident was necessary to restore the proper functioning of the roof. To the extent that defendant asserts that the flashing plaintiff was repairing at the time of his fall was not actively leaking, such a contention is immaterial to whether plaintiff was performing a protected activity, inasmuch as it would be “[in]consistent with the spirit of the [Labor Law] to isolate the moment of injury and ignore the general context of the work” … .

Further, contrary to the court’s determination, we agree with plaintiffs that the rubber flashing was not merely a “component” of a ventilation system and instead was an integral part of a proper functioning roof. Here, plaintiff was performing roofing repair to ensure that the roof of the concession stand was no longer leaking—precisely the type of work that we have long held to be protected by Labor Law § 240 (1) … . Verhoef v Dean, 2024 NY Slip Op 06465, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was repairing the roof when he was injured. He was not performing routine maintenance. He was therefore entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.

 

You might also like
Police Officer Involved In Accident Acted Appropriately In an Emergency Operation—Defendants Not Liable As a Matter of Law
EVEN THOUGH THE WRONG CORPORATION WAS NAMED IN THE CONTRACT DEFENDANT SIGNED AS PRESIDENT, DEFENDANT COULD NOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
County Properly Passed Legislation Phasing Out Tax Exemption
DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A WADE HEARING TO DETERMINE THE RELIABILITY, AS OPPOSED TO SUGGESTIVENESS, OF AN IDENTIFICATION.
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED EITHER TO THE VACATION OF HIS GUILTY PLEA OR TO A SENTENCE WHICH CONFORMED WITH THE SENTENCE PROMISE; DEFENDANT’S 440 MOTION WAS NOT BARRED BY PROVISIONS OF CPL 440.10 (FOURTH DEPT).
PLANNING BOARD ACTED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY WHEN IT DENIED PETITIONER’S CHALLENGE TO A WOODLOT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT (EPOD) FINDING, PLANNING BOARD DID NOT CONSIDER THE CRITERIA LAID OUT IN THE TOWN CODE.
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE PLACED CONDITIONS ON MOTHER’S VISITATION; MATTER REMITTED FOR A SPECIFIC VISITATION SCHEDULE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Violation of Probation Petition May Be Based Upon Hearsay

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR “DECEIT AND... THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 18 USC 1983 AGAINST INDIVIDUAL...