You are here: / / PLAINTIFF FELL WHILE DOING ROUTINE REPAIR ON AN AIR CONDITIONER, NOT COVERED...

PLAINTIFF FELL WHILE DOING ROUTINE REPAIR ON AN AIR CONDITIONER, NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1).

The Second Department determined defendants’ summary judgment motion dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly granted. Plaintiff was engaged in routine repair work:

The plaintiff allegedly was injured while performing work on the air conditioning system in a building … . He allegedly fell while climbing over an “I-beam” that was used to support the air conditioning system. He commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries, alleging, inter alia, a violation of Labor Law § 240(1).

The defendants established, prima facie, that they were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) by showing that the plaintiff’s work did not constitute erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning, or pointing of a building or structure within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … . The defendants established that the work constituted merely routine maintenance of the air conditioning system … . Tserpelis v Tamares Real Estate Holdings, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 01247, 2nd Dept 2-15-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF FELL WHILE DOING ROUTINE REPAIR ON AN AIR CONDITIONER, NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1))/MAINTENANCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, (PLAINTIFF FELL WHILE DOING ROUTINE REPAIR ON AN AIR CONDITIONER, NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1))

You might also like
Defendant Did Not Have the Right to Be Present During Discussion of Exclusion of a Sworn Juror
Current Builder Acquired a Vested Right to Variances Issued to Original Builder
ALTHOUGH THE TEN-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS NOT WRONGFUL, THE DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE INTEREST ACCRUED DURING THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE, THE FACT THAT THE INTRUDER KILLED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, A RESIDENT OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT BUILDING, IN A PRE-MEDITATED, TARGETED ATTACK DID NOT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, INSULATE THE LANDLORD FROM LIABILITY BASED UPON AN ALLEGEDLY BROKEN LOCK ON THE BUILDING’S EXTERIOR DOOR; THE 2ND DEPARTMENT DISAGREED WITH A LINE OF 1ST DEPARTMENT CASES (SECOND DEPT).
THE ESTATE WAS A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR A DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DECEDENT; DEFENDANT’S CROSS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBSTITUTE HERSELF AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF CONDOMINIUM OWNER STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE CONDOMINIUM DEFENDANTS FOR VIOLATION OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT 2ND DEPT.
THE PARENT’S INABILITY TO CONTROL THE CHILD’S BROTHER PRECLUDED THE RETURN OF THE CHILD TO THE PARENT’S CUSTODY AFTER TEMPORARY REMOVAL (SECOND DEPT).
CONVICTIONS OF INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS VACATED (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

ALLEGATIONS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S... PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW PURSUANT TO CPLR 4401...