You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER OCCURRED DURING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE...

PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A LADDER OCCURRED DURING ROUTINE MAINTENANCE AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ACTIONABLE PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly dismissed because plaintiff was engaged in routine maintenance at the time of his fall from a ladder:

“Generally, courts have held that work constitutes routine maintenance where the work involves ‘replacing components that require replacement in the course of normal wear and tear'”  … .

… [T]he defendants established … that the replacement of the condenser fan motor, which, according to the deposition testimony of the injured plaintiff’s employer, weighed approximately 1½ pounds and was the kind of part that required replacement “all the time,” constituted routine maintenance and not repairing, or any of the other enumerated activities under Labor Law § 240(1) … . “The work here involved replacing [a] component[ ] that require[s] replacement in the course of normal wear and tear” … . Stockton v H&E Biffer Enters. No. 2, LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 04568, Second Dept 7-28-21

 

You might also like
Driver of Middle Car in Chain Collision May Not Be Negligent
HOT PURSUIT JUSTIFIED WARRANTLESS ARREST IN DEFENDANT’S HOME (SECOND DEPT).
ANY GROUND FOR A DISCLAIMER NOT MENTIONED IN THE DISCLAIMER LETTER IS WAIVED.
FOR INMATES WHO COMMITTED CRIMES AS JUVENILES, THEIR YOUTH MUST BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN PAROLE DETERMINATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211(a)(1).
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF HAD NOT YET MOVED TO BE APPOINTED GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR HER COMATOSE HUSBAND (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL SENT A LETTER TO THE INSURED SHORTLY AFTER PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN THE INSURED’S HOME REQUESTING THAT THE INSURED NOTIFY HER INSURER, THE INSURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED UNTIL IT RECEIVED THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT SIX MONTHS AFTER THE INCIDENT; THE INSURER PROPERLY DISCLAIMED COVERAGE ON THE GROUND IT HAD NOT BEEN TIMELY NOTIFIED (SECOND DEPT).
UNION’S CLAIM MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR LINE OF DUTY INJURIES WAS BEING UNDULY DELAYED OR DENIED WAS ARBITRABLE, WHETHER THE UNDERLYING GRIEVANCE WAS TIMELY BROUGHT MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR, NOT THE COURT (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

IN THIS RESENTENCING PROCEEDING, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED DEFENDANT’S... DEFENDANT TORTIOUSLY INTERFERED WITH PLAINTIFF’S CONTRACT BUT DID NOT...