You are here: / / INJURY WHILE DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE DID NOT GIVE RISE TO LABOR LAW CAUSES...

INJURY WHILE DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE DID NOT GIVE RISE TO LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION.

The Second Department determined plaintiff was doing routine maintenance (checking light fixtures) when he was injured by a loose electric cable and his Labor Law causes of action were properly dismissed:

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) by offering proof that the plaintiff was involved in routine maintenance rather than repair and, therefore, the plaintiff’s activity did not fall within the protection of that provision of the Labor Law … . …

The defendants also demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6). The plaintiff was not involved in the activity of construction, excavation, or demolition, and the statute does not protect workers involved in maintenance or replacement of parts … . …

The defendants also demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. The defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that they neither created nor had notice of the loose cable that allegedly caused the plaintiff’s electric shock … . Guevera v Simon Prop. Group, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 09254, 2nd Dept 12-16-15

MPNTHLY COMPILATION INDEX ENTRIES:

LABOR LAW (INJURY WHILE DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE NOT COVERED)/ROUTINE MAINTENANCE (INJURY NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW)

You might also like
THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED FACTS THAT WOULD SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL (SECOND DEPT).
Damages Related to Improvements Made on Condemned Property Allowed.
THE PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION; THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS DID NOT WARRANT GRANTING THE MOTION TO DISMISS; THE AFFIFAVITS WERE NOT “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE” AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ANY MATERIAL FACT ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFFS WAS NOT “A FACT AT ALL” (SECOND DEPT).
Elements of Retaliatory Termination Described
DEFENDANTS’ MEDICAL EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY BASED UPON THE MEDICAL RECORDS AND MATERIAL IN EVIDENCE DESPITE NOT HAVING PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE INJURIES; THE EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY ABOUT CAUSATION EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE EXPERT REPORT (SECOND DEPT).
ELECTRICIAN SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE IN DRIVEWAY OF DEFENDANTS’ HOME, DEFENDANTS, WHO WERE OUT-OF-STATE, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE DRIVEWAY WAS LAST INSPECTED OR WHAT THE CONDITION OF THE DRIVEWAY WAS ON THE DAY OF THE SLIP AND FALL, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED.
HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED.
AN ACTION CANNOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 WHEN ISSUE HAS NEVER BEEN JOINED (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

NEW YORK WOULD REMAIN “HOME STATE” FOR A CUSTODY MATTER IF FATHER... FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE WHEN AREA WAS LAST CLEANED OR INSPECTED REQUIRED DENIAL...