You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS DOING REPAIR WORK OR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE...

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS DOING REPAIR WORK OR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether defendant had notice of the dangerous condition created by oil dripping on the floor (Labor Law 200), and whether plaintiff was engaged in repair (covered by Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6)) rather than routine maintenance (not covered) when working on the garage door:

There was evidence in the record that automotive services were being performed on the defendants’ premises by its employees, including changing oil filters and disposing the used oil filters into oil drums, and that oil was dripping from a spigot attached to a barrel close to the location of the plaintiff’s accident. This evidence raises a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants created a dangerous or defective condition, or had actual or constructive notice of such a condition without remedying it within a reasonable time … . …

… [T]he injured plaintiff testified at his deposition that when the accident occurred, he was attempting to remove a bearing plate in order to replace a broken spring on the garage door. He also testified that one of the bolts of the bearing plate was stripped, so he had to widen the hole so that it would accept another bolt. …

Labor Law § 240(1) applies where an employee is engaged “in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure,” but does not apply to “routine maintenance” … . Here, the evidence raises a triable issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff was involved in a repair or routine maintenance at the time of the accident … .

Labor Law § 241(6) applies to construction, excavation, or demolition work. Construction work is defined in 12 NYCRR 23-1.4 as including the “repair, maintenance, painting or moving of buildings or other structures.” Thus, there are triable issues of fact as to whether Labor Law § 241(6) was violated in this matter … . Nusio v Legend Autorama, Ltd., 2023 NY Slip Op 04385, Second Dept 8-23-23

Practice Point: Routine maintenance is not covered by Labor Law 240(1) or 241(6) but repair work is. Here plaintiff was working on the garage door mechanism which required replacement of a stripped bolt. There was a question of fact on the repair versus routine-maintenance question.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ACCESS TO COMPLAINANT’S MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PREVENTED FROM CROSS-EXAMINING COMPLAINANT ABOUT HER MENTAL HEALTH; CONVICTION REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PEDIATRIC PRACTICE SUBMITTED EXPERT EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF’S ADOLESCENT SCOLIOSIS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED UNTIL A YEAR AFTER PLAINTIFF LEFT DEFENDANT’S CARE; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS THAT ISSUE; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD NOTICE OF CRACKED CONCRETE SLAB WHICH COLLAPSED, PLAINTIFF DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY INDUSTRIAL CODE VIOLATION, LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
PROPERTY OWNED AS TENANTS BY THE ENTIRETY PASSES FREE AND CLEAR TO THE SURVIVING SPOUSE, PURCHASE FROM THE SURVIVING SPOUSE PROVIDES CLEAR TITLE, HEARSAY ALONE WILL NOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE POST ON LINKEDIN MET THE CRITERIA FOR THE “STRATEGIC LAWSUIT AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION” (SLAPP) DEFENSE TO THE DEFAMATION ACTION, PLAINTIFFS DEMONSTRATED THE DEFAMATION ACTION HAS A “SUBSTANTIAL BASIS IN LAW;” THEREFORE THE ACTION SURVIVED THE MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 76-A (SECOND DEPT). ​
No “Special Employee” Relationship
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONFIGURATION AT THE TOP OF THE STAIRS AND THE ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL WERE NOT DANGEROUS CONDITIONS WHICH PROXIMATELY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S FALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT.
POLICE OFFICER’S GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-E CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOT MET BY POINTING TO GAPS IN OTHER PARTY’S PROOF.

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

THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (RPTL), NOT THE CPLR, CONTROLS THE COMMENCEMENT OF... A HEARING IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED IN...