You are here: / / WHETHER “CLEANING” IS A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1)...

WHETHER “CLEANING” IS A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE CLEANING WORK IS “ROUTINE;” “ROUTINE” CLEANING WORK IS NOT COVERED (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, determine plaintiff should not have been awarded summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action and defendant’s summary judgment motion should have been granted. The issue was whether plaintiff was injured doing “cleaning” work covered by the Labor Law. The Court of Appeals held plaintiff was doing “routine” work, which therefore did not qualify as “cleaning” under Labor Law 240(1). The facts were not explained:

Labor Law § 240 (1) requires certain contractors and property owners to provide adequate safety devices when workers engage in particular tasks involving elevation-related risks. To recover under section 240 (1) for an injury caused by a failure to provide such safety devices, plaintiffs must first show that they were engaged in one of that section’s enumerated activities including, among others, “cleaning.” To determine whether an activity is “cleaning” within the meaning of the statute, courts apply a four-factor analysis (see Soto v J. Crew Inc., 21 NY3d 562, 568 [2013]). The first factor considers whether the work is “routine, in the sense that it is the type of job that occurs on a daily, weekly or other relatively-frequent and recurring basis as part of the ordinary maintenance and care of commercial premises” (id. [emphasis added]). This factor does not involve a fact-specific assessment of a plaintiff’s regular tasks—it instead asks whether the type of work would be expected to recur with relative frequency as part of the ordinary maintenance and care of a commercial property (see id. at 569).

Here, plaintiff’s work was “routine” within the meaning of the first factor, which therefore weighs against concluding that he was “cleaning.” “[V]iewed in totality,” the Soto factors do not “militate in favor of placing the task” in the category of “cleaning” (id. at 568-569). Healy v EST Downtown, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 02836, CtApp 4-28-22

​Practice Point: Injury while “cleaning” is not covered under Labor Law 240(1) if it is “routine.”

 

You might also like
THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO PRECLUDE THE VILLAGE FROM RAISING THE “FAILURE TO FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM” DEFENSE TO DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM (CT APP).
Plaintiff Failed to Raise a Question of Fact Concerning Whether the Driver of a Police Vehicle Exhibited “Reckless Disregard” for the Safety of Others In Responding to an Urgent Call—Defendant Police Officer Was Driving Against Traffic on a One-Way Street When the Collision Occurred
Although “Zone of Danger” Damages Were Asserted in the Complaint, the Failure to Request a “Zone of Danger” Jury Instruction and the Failure to Object to the Verdict Sheet (Which Did Not Mention “Zone of Danger” Damages) Precluded the Trial Court from Setting Aside the Verdict and Ordering a New Damages Trial
MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS WHICH DID NOT INVOLVE VIOLENCE OR SEXUAL CONDUCT WERE PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY COUNTY COURT IN DENYING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A SORA RISK-LEVEL REDUCTION TO LEVEL ONE, DESPITE THE BOARD OF EXAMINERS OF SEX OFFENDERS’ STATEMENT IT “WOULD NOT OPPOSE” A LEVEL ONE RISK ASSESSMENT (CT APP).
Wilfulness Is Not an Element of Civil Contempt/Supreme Court Properly Drew a Negative Inference from Defendant’s Invocation of His Fifth Amendment Right Against Self-Incrimination
DIRECT APPEAL CANNOT BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE APPELLANT’S INVOLUNTARY DEPORTATION.
OKAY FOR THE JURY TO CONSIDER WHETHER DEFENDANT’S SILENCE AND EVASIVENESS DURING A PHONE CALL WITH THE VICTIM RECORDED BY THE JAIL WAS AN ADOPTIVE ADMISSION.
Introduction of Statements Made to Police In Absence of Counsel When Defendant Was Represented by Counsel on a Another Matter Deemed Harmless Error

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 APPELLATE DIVISION INITIALLY REVERSED SUPREME COURT AND HELD PLAINTIFF WAS... PETITIONER WAS CHARGED WITH MAKING A COMMENT TO A FELLOW EMPLOYEE AT A SOCIAL...