You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SO HIS FALL FROM A LADDER...
, , ,

PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SO HIS FALL FROM A LADDER WAS NOT ACTIONABLE PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240 (1), A MUNICIPALITY’S MAINTENANCE OF LIGHT POLES IS A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION TO WHICH THE DOCTRINE OF IMMUNITY DOES NOT APPLY, THE MUNICIPALITY’S ‘LACK OF WRITTEN NOTICE’ DEFENSE COULD NOT BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff was engaged in routine maintenance when he was injured, which is not actionable pursuant to Labor Law 240 (1). The Third Department further determined that a municipality’s maintenance of light poles is a proprietary function subject to ordinary standards of negligence which is not protected by the doctrine of governmental immunity. The court further held that the “lack of written notice” defense was not a question of law which the municipality could raise for the first time on appeal. The plaintiff was repairing burned out lights which were on strands of decorative lights attached to a light pole. The strands of decorative lights were not fixtures within the meaning of the Labor Law:

… Merchants [a non-profit which had wrapped decorative lights around city light poles] hired plaintiff, as an independent contractor, to replace light strands located on 36 light poles because many of the light bulbs had become inoperable. Plaintiff was injured when he fell from a 16-foot aluminum-rung extension ladder when the pole that it was leaning on suddenly fell over. …

… [R]replacement of the light strands, which was necessary because numerous bulbs had burned out, constituted routine maintenance that is outside the protection of Labor Law § 240 (1) … . …

… [A]lthough replacement of a light fixture on a lighting pole is a repair within the protection of Labor Law § 240 (1) … , under the facts herein, the light strands cannot be considered a fixture. …

Although a municipality may enjoy qualified immunity from liability arising from highway planning and design decisions … , that doctrine does not shield a municipality from liability arising from negligent maintenance. Gutkaiss v Delaware Ave. Merchants Group, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 04527, Third Dept 6-6-19

 

You might also like
OFFICER HAD A REASONABLE BASIS TO CONDUCT A FRISK OF THE DEFENDANT FOR SAFETY REASONS AFTER A VEHICLE STOP (THIRD DEPT).
Resentencing to a Term of Imprisonment with a Maximum Greater than the Initial Sentence Violates Double Jeopardy Principles
ALTHOUGH CONSENT ORDERS ARE GENERALLY NOT APPEALABLE, HERE THERE WAS A QUESTION WHETHER MOTHER WAS ABLE TO CONSENT IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING; THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD CANNOT VETO THE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES (THIRD DEPT).
THE NEW YORK STATE AND LOCAL RETIRMENT SYSTEM DID NOT REBUT THE “WORLD TRADE CENTER PRESUMPTION” THAT PETITIONER’S DEPRESSION WAS AGGRAVATED BY HIS EXPERIENCES ON 9-11; PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
Involuntary Retention Appropriate—Respondent Suffered from Developmental Disability Which Originated Before the Age of 22
THE FELONY COMPLAINT CHARGED DEFENDANT WITH RAPE FIRST (FORCIBLE COMPULSION); THE SUPERIOR COURT INFORMATION (SCI) CHARGED RAPE THIRD (LACK OF CONSENT); BECAUSE RAPE THIRD AS CHARGED IN THE SCI WAS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF RAPE FIRST AS CHARGED IN THE FELONY COMPLAINT, THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT AND SCI WERE JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (THIRD DEPT). ​
Plaintiff Was Unable to Demonstrate Landlord Had Knowledge of Presence of Lead Paint​
PLAINTIFF’S “INVOLUNTARY RESIGNATION,” HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND RETALIATION ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD 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

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE SERVICE OF... INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF NEGLECT AND DERIVATIVE NEGLECT FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE...