You are here: / / Cleaning Clogged Drain Was Routine Maintenance, Not Covered by Labor Law...

Cleaning Clogged Drain Was Routine Maintenance, Not Covered by Labor Law 240(1)

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff was engaged in routine maintenance, not repair, and therefore his injury from a fall from a ladder was not covered under Labor Law 240(1):

Addressing … the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, we conclude that plaintiff was not “repairing” the corrosion chamber at the time he was injured, and thus that he was not engaged in a protected activity under section 240 (1). Rather, defendants established as a matter of law that plaintiff was involved in “routine maintenance in a non-construction, non-renovation context” … . The court therefore properly granted that part of defendants’ motion with respect to that cause of action and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion. Neither the corrosion chamber nor the components of the “drainage system,” i.e., the floor drain and plastic piping, were in need of “repair.” Rather, the drain was clogged, at least in part as a result of the normal operation of the chamber. Plaintiff testified at his deposition that the clog consisted of “paper and what looked to be like pieces of wooden dowel from like Q-tips that they use,” i.e., parts of samples that had been placed in the chamber on prior occasions, as well as an unknown substance. Although plaintiff and his supervisor testified that dirty conditions in the chamber could potentially compromise test results, there is no evidence that the chamber was ” inoperable or malfunctioning prior to the commencement of the work’ ” … . Further, there is no evidence that plaintiff had to use specialized tools or any tools at all to take apart the plastic piping. Indeed, defendants’ expert averred that the PVC piping had no mechanical fasteners and was “merely a friction fit, therefore, it would be a routine task to remove.” Plaintiff then used an air hose, metal wire, and a water hose to remove the clog, all of which were readily accessible to and used by him in the course of his employment. Leathers v Zaepfel Dev Co Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 06691, 4th Dept 10-3-14

 

You might also like
SUPREME COURT’S VACATION OF THE ARBITRATION AWARD AS “IRRATIONAL” REVERSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).
Construction at County Airport Was a Governmental Function—County is Therefore “Immune” from a Suit Alleging the Construction Caused a Highway White-Out Condition Which Resulted in Plaintiff’s-Decedent’s Death in a Collision
FATHER AND MOTHER SUBMITTED INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ON THE ISSUE WHETHER THE CHILDREN WERE CONSTRUCTIVELY EMANCIPATED; FATHER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS PETITION TO TERMINATE HIS CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS WAS PROPERLY DENIED BUT MOTHER’S PETITION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING FATHER’S PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF MOVED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE AND CERTIFICATE OF READINESS HAD BEEN FILED; EVEN THOUGH THE AMENDMENT ADDED A CAUSE OF ACTION REQUIRING FURTHER DISCOVERY, THE MOTION WAS GRANTED BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE DISCOVERED THE PROBLEM WITH CERTAIN EVIDENCE SOONER, FOR SPEEDY TRIAL PURPOSES THE PEOPLE CAN BE CHARGED ONLY WITH THE TIME NECESSARY TO INVESTIGATE THE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENTIARY ISSUE; THE NEED FOR MORE INVESTIGATION DID NOT INVALIDATE THE PEOPLE’S STATEMENT OF READINESS WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN; THEREFORE THE INDICTMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS (FOURTH DEPT).
MOTHER WAS PROPERLY FOUND TO HAVE DEFAULTED IN THIS CUSTODY MATTER; MOTHER’S ATTORNEY APPEARED BUT DECLINED TO PARTICIPATE; ALTHOUGH AN ORDER ENTERED UPON DEFAULT CANNOT BE APPEALED, CONTESTED MATTERS DETERMINED BY THE TRIAL COURT, HERE WHETHER MOTHER’S ATTORNEY’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CAN BE CONSIDERED UPON APPEAL FROM THE ORDER (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Conflict of Interest Waived Where Respondent Knew of the Conflict and Participated in Prior Proceedings for Some Time
NO FOUNDATION FOR RECANTATION EVIDENCE COULD BE LAID BECAUSE THE ALLEGED VICTIM REFUSED TO TESTIFY; TRIAL COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED VICTIM’S TESTIMONY FROM THE FIRST TRIAL TO BE ADMITTED WITHOUT EXPLORING WHETHER THE TESTIMONY SHOULD BE STRUCK BECAUSE IT WAS CENTRAL TO THE PROSECUTION’S CASE; TRIAL COURT ACTED VINDICTIVELY BY IMPOSING A HARSHER SENTENCE AFTER RETRIAL.

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

Court Indicates a Certification Claimant Is Not Working Can Be a “Willful... The Language of the NYC Rent Control Law, Unlike the Language of the NYC Rent...