You are here: / / REPAIRING A LIGHT FIXTURE IS COVERED UNDER BOTH LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241...

REPAIRING A LIGHT FIXTURE IS COVERED UNDER BOTH LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying Supreme Court) determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6) and 200 causes of action should not have been granted. Plaintiff fell from an A-frame ladder when he was repairing a light fixture at the Nassau Coliseum. Repairing the light fixture is an activity covered by both Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6):

Here, the County defendants’ own submissions highlighted rather than eliminated triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff was engaged in repairs or routine maintenance at the time of his accident. Among other things, the County defendants submitted the plaintiff’s deposition testimony in support of summary judgment. Although the plaintiff’s testimony demonstrated that some of the lighting poles on which he worked may have only required the tightening or replacement of a lightbulb, he testified that more labor intensive work was performed on other lighting poles in order to make them function, which fell within the scope of “repairing” a light fixture and, concomitantly, within the scope of Labor Law § 240(1) … . …

“Labor Law § 241(6) imposes a nondelegable duty of reasonable care upon owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to persons employed in . . . construction, excavation or demolition work”… . “[T]he courts have generally held that the scope of Labor Law § 241(6) is governed by 12 NYCRR 23-1.4(b)(13), which defines construction work expansively. Under that regulation, construction work consists of [a]ll work of the types performed in the construction, erection, alteration, repair, maintenance, painting or moving of buildings or other structures” …. Since the plaintiff was arguably engaged in the repair of the subject lighting fixtures, the County defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that Labor Law § 241(6) was inapplicable to the plaintiff’s activities. Wass v County of Nassau, 2019 NY Slip Op 04748, Second Dept 6-12-19

 

You might also like
COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL, ISSUE NOT RAISED BELOW PROPERLY CONSIDERED ON APPEAL.
HERE THE FRAMING COMPANY HIRED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND GIVEN SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK WAS LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S INJURY AS A “STATUTORY AGENT” OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).
DUPLICATE COVERAGE PROHIBITION IN SUPPLEMENTAL UNINSURED UNDERINSURED MOTORIST (SUM) ENDORSEMENT NOT VIOLATED WHERE OVERALL DAMAGES EXCEED AMOUNT WHICH CAN BE RECOVERED FROM SEVERAL TORTFEASORS.
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO INFORM HIM OF THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILITY PLEA AND FOR FAILING TO NEGOTIATE A PLEA TO AN OFFENSE WHICH DID NOT MANDATE DEPORTATION (SECOND DEPT).
THE MEDICAL RECORDS DID NOT PROVIDE NOTICE TO THE HOSPITAL OF A POTENTIAL MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AND PETITIONER FAILED TO SHOW THE HOSPITAL WOULD NOT BE PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY IN SERVING A NOTICE OF CLAIM; LEAVE TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND BUS COMPANY STEMMING FROM A FIGHT INSTIGATED BY A STUDENT ON THE BUS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AND THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RENEW SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION (NYCHHC); CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
AN ELECTRICAL SUBCONTRACTOR WHICH IS NOT LICENSED IN NEW YORK CITY CANNOT SUE FOR PAYMENT FOR WORK DONE IN THE CITY AND CANNOT FORECLOSE ON RELATED MECHANIC’S LIENS (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

A PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING DID NOT ACCELERATE... PAIN MANAGEMENT DOCTOR’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE/WRONGFUL...