You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS REPAIRING THE FLASHING ON THE ROOF, NOT DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE,...
,

PLAINTIFF WAS REPAIRING THE FLASHING ON THE ROOF, NOT DOING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, AT THE TIME HE WAS INJURED ENTITLING HIM TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was performing repairs, not routine maintenance, when he was injured, entitling him to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action:

“Delineating between routine maintenance and repairs is frequently a close, fact-driven issue . . . , and that distinction depends upon whether the item being worked on was inoperable or malfunctioning prior to the commencement of the work . . . , and whether the work involved the replacement of components damaged by normal wear and tear” … . Here, the testimony submitted by plaintiffs established, and the court found, that the rubber flashing was malfunctioning and inoperable prior to replacement and that the work being performed by plaintiff at the time of the accident was necessary to restore the proper functioning of the roof. To the extent that defendant asserts that the flashing plaintiff was repairing at the time of his fall was not actively leaking, such a contention is immaterial to whether plaintiff was performing a protected activity, inasmuch as it would be “[in]consistent with the spirit of the [Labor Law] to isolate the moment of injury and ignore the general context of the work” … .

Further, contrary to the court’s determination, we agree with plaintiffs that the rubber flashing was not merely a “component” of a ventilation system and instead was an integral part of a proper functioning roof. Here, plaintiff was performing roofing repair to ensure that the roof of the concession stand was no longer leaking—precisely the type of work that we have long held to be protected by Labor Law § 240 (1) … . Verhoef v Dean, 2024 NY Slip Op 06465, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff was repairing the roof when he was injured. He was not performing routine maintenance. He was therefore entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action.

 

You might also like
FAILURE TO INFORM DEFENDANT A FINE IS PART OF THE SENTENCE RENDERED THE GUILTY PLEA INVOLUNTARY (FOURTH DEPT).
THE JUDGE FAILED TO INQUIRE FURTHER DURING THE PLEA ALLOCUTION WHEN DEFENDANT SAID HE DID NOT VIOLATE THE ORDER OF PROTECTION INTENTIONALLY; THERE IS NO NEED TO PRESERVE A DEFECTIVE-ALLOCUTION ERROR; CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).
Court’s Equitable Power to Set Aside a Foreclosure Sale as “An Instrument of Injustice” Explained and Applied
DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDED DEFENDANT WITH ERRONEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT THE LENGTH OF HIS SENTENCE SHOULD HE BE CONVICTED AFTER TRIAL AND ERRONEOUSLY TOLD THE DEFENDANT HIS PLEA TO SEX TRAFFICKING WOULD NOT MAKE HIM SUBJECT TO THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).
NYS Department of Environmental Protection (DEC) Has Authority to Address the Pollution of New York Waters by Oil and Gas Producer Operating Across the Border in Pennsylvania/DEC’s Authority Not Demonstrated to Be Preempted by Federal Clean Water Act
FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF A JURY NOTE REQUIRED REVERSAL.
Abuse of Discretion to Entertain a Motion to Suppress Brought More than 45 Days After Arraignment (the Motion Had Been Granted and the People Appealed)
Evidence Insufficient to Support Reckless Endangerment in the First Degree—No One In Line of Fire

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 COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR “DECEIT AND... THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 18 USC 1983 AGAINST INDIVIDUAL...