You are here: / / INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY FLAG HOLDERS NOT A PROTECTED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR...

INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY FLAG HOLDERS NOT A PROTECTED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s injuries from a two-story fall were not covered by Labor Law 240 (1). Plaintiff was installing temporary flag holders at the time of the fall:

 

The record establishes that plaintiff was not engaged in a protected activity under Labor Law § 240(1) at the time of his accident. Plaintiff testified that the installation of the three flag holder brackets entailed marking the location of the screws, drilling three holes for each bracket, placing plastic fasteners in the holes, and attaching each flag holder with three screws to hold it in place. Such work did not constitute “altering” since it did not result in a “significant physical change” to the building’s structure … . The cosmetic and nonstructural nature of the work is reflected by the temporary placement of the flags to enhance the exterior appearance of the building during the St. Patrick’s Day celebration, after which they were removed … . Lannon v 356 W. 44th St. Rest., Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 01129, 1st Dept 2-16-16

 

LABOR LAW (INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY FLAG HOLDERS NOT A PROTECTED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR ALW 240 (1)

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE CLIMBED THE LADDER FROM WHICH HE FELL, THUS PLACING THE INCIDENT OUTSIDE THE PROTECTION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).
CHARACTER IN A MOVIE BASED UPON A SHORT STORY WAS IDENTIFIABLE AS PLAINTIFF, THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION AGAINST THE MAKERS OF THE MOVIE (FIRST DEPT).
Contract with Construction Manager Did Not Give the Manager Sufficient Supervisory Control to Impose Liability Under Labor Law 200, 240 (1) or 246 (1)
“Special Facts Doctrine” as Applied to Fraud Allegations Explained
PLAINTIFF FELL LEAVING AN ELEVATOR HE HAD JUST MODIFIED TO PREVENT ACCESS TO A FLOOR; HIS WORK WAS NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE; INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS ABOUT GUARDING HAZARDOUS OPENINGS APPLIED; ONE DEFENDANT MAY BE LIABLE AS A STATUTORY AGENT; LABOR LAW 200, 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE INTERSTATE COMPACT FOR THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN (ICPC) APPLIES ONLY TO OUT-OF-STATE ADOPTION OR FOSTER CARE, NOT TO THE PLACEMENT OF A CHILD WITH AN OUT-OF-STATE PARENT; QUESTION CONSIDERED ON APPEAL AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE; REGULATION RELIED ON TO APPLY THE ICPC CONFLICTS WITH THE CONTROLLING STATUTE (FIRST DEPT).
THE FACT THAT A (NON-DEFECTIVE) A-FRAME LADDER FELL OVER WHILE PLAINTIFF HELD ON TO IT AFTER PLAINTIFF WAS JOLTED WITH ELECTRICITY JUSTIFIED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION.
ABSENCE OF ANY MENTION OF DEFENDANT DISCARDING A WEAPON IN THE PAPERWORK RELATING TO DEFENDANT’S ARREST, AND THE DIFFERING VERSIONS OF EVENTS PRIOR TO DEFENDANT’S ARREST, RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST DEFENDANT FOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON.

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

OIL-SPILL DAMAGES INVESTIGATOR WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT BEN... DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LACK OF NOTICE OF DANGEROUS CONDITION, SUMMARY...