You are here: / / Question of Fact Whether Vacuuming an HVAC Duct Was a Covered Cleaning...

Question of Fact Whether Vacuuming an HVAC Duct Was a Covered Cleaning Activity Under the Labor Law

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether vacuuming an HVAC duct was a covered “cleaning” activity under Labor Law 240(1):

Outside the sphere of commercial window washing (which is covered by Labor Law § 240[1]), the determination of whether an activity may be characterized as “cleaning” under the statute depends on a consideration of four factors. An activity cannot be considered “cleaning” under the statute if it: “(1) is routine, in the sense that it is the type of job that occurs on a daily, [*2]weekly or other relatively-frequent and recurring basis as part of the ordinary maintenance and care of commercial premises; (2) requires neither specialized equipment or expertise, nor the unusual deployment of labor; (3) generally involves insignificant elevation risks comparable to those inherent in typical domestic or household cleaning; and (4) in light of the core purpose of Labor Law § 240(1) to protect construction workers, is unrelated to any ongoing construction, renovation, painting, alteration or repair project” … . Collymore v 1895 WWA, LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 00320, 2nd Dept 1-22-14

 

You might also like
Court Has Discretion to Grant a Recess to Allow a Conference Between a Lawyer and a Testifying Witness
Second Summary Judgment Motion Properly Denied—Not Based on Newly Discovered Evidence
THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY BEFORE ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF (SECOND DEPT).
THE “BUILDING” DEFENDANTS AND THE COMPANY WHICH INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THE AIR CONDITIONING UNIT WHICH ALLEGEDLY LEAKED WATER ON THE FLOOR WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD; THE “BUILDING” DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDITION; AND THE COMPANY WHICH INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THE AIR CONDITIONER DID NOT SHOW IT DID NOT LAUNCH AND INSTRUMENT OF HARM (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Specifically Demonstrate When Area Where Fall Occurred Was Last Inspected or Cleaned Required Denial of Summary Judgment
PLAINTIFF BANK PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, THE BANK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Insurer of Lessee Obligated to Defend and Indemnify the Owner/Lessor of the Premises (Named as an Additional Insured) Re: a Slip and Fall on the Sidewalk in Front of the Premises/Use of the Sidewalk Constitutes “Use of the Leased Premises” Within the Meaning of the Policy
SUPREME COURT, SUA SPONTE, SET ASIDE AN IN-COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN A DIVORCE ACTION, NEITHER PARTY REQUESTED THAT RELIEF, STIPULATION REINSTATED (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

Separate Dispositional Hearing to Determine Best Interests of the Child Appropriate... Question of Fact About Negligent Supervision at Skating Rink