You are here: / / THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S WORK ON A BOILER...

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S WORK ON A BOILER WAS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OR PART OF A LARGER COVERED ACTIVITY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) ACTION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUPERVISE OR CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK REQUIRING DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTIONS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was a question of fact whether plaintiff was engaged in a covered activity and not routine maintenance of a boiler. In addition, the First Department held that the defendant did not supervise of control the plaintiff’s work and therefore the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action should have been dismissed:

Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) do not cover workers engaged in routine maintenance … . The determination of whether a worker was engaged in a covered activity is not made at the moment of injury, but in the context of the entire project … . While plaintiff here was engaged in replacing a boiler steam valve, an activity some courts have deemed routine maintenance … , it was part of a larger project that included removing portions of the boilers via blowtorches and installation of new components by welding, thus raising an issue of fact whether it falls within covered activity … . …

Plaintiff’s accident arose from the means and methods of the work, not a defective condition … , and the record is clear that defendants neither supervised nor controlled the work being performed by plaintiff and his coworkers at the time of the accident. Thus, this Court, upon a search of the record, dismisses plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 and common-law claims … . Gaston v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y., 2021 NY Slip Op 00254, First Dept 1-19-21

 

You might also like
Allegation Release Procured by Fraud Precluded Dismissal of Complaint
TWO TO THREE FOOT FALL OF HEAVY STEEL PLATE WHICH WAS BEING HOISTED IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL NOT DE MINIMUS (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO MOVE TO REOPEN SUPPRESSION HEARING BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE LEARNED AT TRIAL CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE.
Even Though Length of Merging Lane Was a Factor in Accident, It Was Not the Proximate Cause of the Accident
WHERE A JURY NOTE DOES NOT UNAMBIGUOUSLY DESCRIBE A REQUESTED EXHIBIT, THE NOTE MUST BE READ OR SHOWN TO THE PARTIES AND THE PARTIES MUST BE ALLOWED INPUT RE: THE PROPER RESPONSE; HERE THE JUDGE DID NOT FOLLOW THAT PROCEDURE AND THE CONVICTIONS WERE REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED ON THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE AND INSTRUCTED THAT THE VIOLATION OF THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IS SOME EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN A SURRENDER OF THE LEASED PREMISES BY OPERATION OF LAW, THEREBY LIMITING TENANT’S LIABILITY FOR ABANDONMENT OF THE LEASE WITH TEN YEARS REMAINING (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INCAPACITATED PERSON (IP) WAS “INSANE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CPLR WHEN HE WAS REPRESENTED BY THE DEFENDANT ATTORNEY MUST BE DETERMINED AT THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE TRIAL; IF THE IP WAS INSANE, THE MALPRACTICE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WILL BE TOLLED; IF NOT THE MALPRACTICE ACTION IS UNTIMELY (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

GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 (DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY... THE CPLR 3215 REQUIREMENT THAT PROCEEDINGS TO TAKE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT BE COMMENCED...