You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN ‘CLEANING’ WITHIN THE MEANING...

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN ‘CLEANING’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHEN SHE FELL FROM A LADDER, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the “cleaning” being done by plaintiff when she fell from a ladder was not covered by Labor Law 240 (1):

The plaintiff was an employee of a cleaning services company which was hired to clean a condominium apartment following a renovation by the defendant Morgan Interiors, Inc. (hereinafter Morgan Interiors). On the day of the occurrence in question, the plaintiff arrived at the apartment along with a cleaning crew, where she was directed by her supervisor to clean certain floor-to-ceiling cabinets and was given a stepladder and a cloth for this purpose. …

The determination of whether an activity may be considered “cleaning” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1), as opposed to routine maintenance, has been held to depend on four factors, considered as a whole. An activity will not be considered “cleaning” under the statute (1) if it is “routine,” that is, it is performed on a daily, weekly, or other relatively frequent recurring basis as part of ordinary maintenance; (2) if it does not require specialized equipment or expertise, nor unusual deployment of labor; (3) if it involves insignificant elevation risks comparable to those encountered during typical domestic or household cleaning, and (4) if it is unrelated to any ongoing construction, renovation, painting, alteration, or repair project … .

Here, the moving defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that the plaintiff was not engaged in “cleaning” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1), as her work did not require specialized equipment, and was unrelated to any ongoing construction or renovation of the apartment. Holguin v Barton, 2018 NY Slip Op 02602, Second Dept 4-18-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN ‘CLEANING’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHEN SHE FELL FROM A LADDER, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CLEANING (LABOR LAW 240 (1), PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENGAGED IN ‘CLEANING’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) WHEN SHE FELL FROM A LADDER, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
THE 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT FOR FILING AND SERVING A NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY FOR WRONGFUL DEATH RUNS FROM THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ADMINISTRATOR; HERE THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS TIMELY FOR THE WRONGFUL DEATH CAUSE OF ACTION; HOWEVER THE 90-DAY TIME-LIMIT FOR THE CAUSES OF ACTION FOR CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING AND PREIMPACT TERROR RUNS FROM THE DATE OF THE ACCIDENT; THE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN REJECTED AS UNTIMELY FOR THOSE TWO CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION REQUIRING THE DISCLOSURE OF AN ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S FINANCIAL INFORMATION AFTER THE COUNTY ETHICS COMMITTEE DENIED THE DISCLOSURE-REQUEST MADE BY A NEWSPAPER; THE LEGISLATURE USURPED THE POWER OF A REVIEWING COURT (SECOND DEPT).
COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF’S SUICIDE ATTEMPT WAS NOT FORESEEABLE, PLAINTIFF WAS IN THE COUNTY JAIL AT THE TIME, SHE JUMPED OUT OF A SECOND STORY WINDOW, COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THERE WAS GOOD CAUSE FOR THE 31 YEAR DELAY IN INDICTING DEFENDANT FOR MURDER (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF HER FALL AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE RELEASE WAS SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF UNDER UNFAIR CIRCUMSTANCES; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON THE RELEASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE AVAILABILTY OF GOVERNMENT RECORDS ON A PUBLIC WEBSITE DOES NOT SATISFY A FOIL REQUEST; HERE THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE VILLAGE SHOULD HAVE WORKED WITH THE PETITIONER TO IDENTIFY THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS (SECOND DEPT).
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY UNDER CONTRACT WITH NURSING HOME MAY BE LIABLE IN TORT TO THIRD PARTY INJURED BY ELEVATOR MALFUNCTION.

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

ANY CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE INSURER WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S... QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE WORK ON A BOILER WAS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE (NOT...