You are here: / / INSTALLING WINDOW SHADES IS NOT ‘ALTERING’ WITHIN THE MEANING...

INSTALLING WINDOW SHADES IS NOT ‘ALTERING’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND WAS NOT PART OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendants’ motion for summary judgment  on the Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6) and 200 causes of action should have been dismissed. Plaintiff’s work was not “altering” within the meaning of Labor Law 240 (1) and was not part of the general contractor’s (Greenlight’s) contract with the apartment owners (the Dixons):

Because plaintiff Martin Topoli’s work installing window shades at the time of the accident does not constitute “altering” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1), that claim is dismissed …. The Labor Law § 241(6) claim is also dismissed, since plaintiff’s work is separate and distinct from the larger construction project … . Third-party defendants and apartment owners, Rebecca Dixon and Adam Dixon, modified the contract with general contractor Greenlight Construction Management Corp. to remove the provision and installation of window treatments from the scope of its work. The Dixons directly contracted with plaintiff’s employer for the installation of the window shades after the construction work was completed and they had moved in to the apartment. Greenlight’s return to the work site after the completion of construction, done to accommodate the Dixons’ new desire for larger window valances, was limited in nature and separate from plaintiff’s work. Topoli v 77 Bleecker St. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 07537, First Dept 10-22-19

 

You might also like
Usual Criteria for Piercing the Corporate Veil Applied in Fraudulent Conveyance Action
EVEN THOUGH THE PEDESTRIAN DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY WHEN HE CROSSED THE STREET, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER COULD HAVE AVOIDED STRIKING HIM.
DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED ABOUT HIS SENTENCING EXPOSURE, THE NATURE OF THE CHARGES AND THE RISKS OF REPRESENTING HIMSELF; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
ACTION AGAINST AMAZON ALLEGING RETALIATION AGAINST WORKERS WHO PROTESTED COVID-RELATED WORKING CONDITIONS PREEMPTED BY NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT (NLRA) (FIRST DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENDANT CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY AND THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN NASSAU COUNTY WHERE THE CORPORATION DID HAVE AN OFFICE, VENUE WAS APPROPRIATELY PLACED IN NEW YORK COUNTY BASED ON DEFENDANT’S CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, WHO SOLD GOODS TO NEW JERSEY COMPANIES FOR WHICH IT WAS NOT FULLY PAID, FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE NEW YORK JURISDICTION; FACTS PLED DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LONG-ARM JURISDICTION; SITUS OF THE INJURY WAS NEW JERSEY, NOT NEW YORK.
THE CONTROLLING STATUTE DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT THE CITY CAN SUE FOR DAMAGES FOR INJURY TO TREES, THE REGULATION WHICH PURPORTS TO ALLOW SUCH A SUIT DECLARED INVALID (FIRST DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT HOTEL BOOKING SERVICE, AGODA, COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE IN PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST THE HOTEL; AGODA’S TERMS OF USE LIMITED LIABILITY TO THE BOOKING SERVICES AND EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED LIABILITY FOR PERSONAL INJURY AT THE HOTEL (FIRST 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’S ‘DENIAL OF A FAIR TRIAL’ ACTION PURSUANT TO 42... UNLOADING A HEAVY AIR CONDITIONING COIL FROM A TRUCK IS AN ACTIVITY COVERED...