BINETTI v. << (1997)

Order and judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered on or about November 20, 1995 and January 17, 1996, respectively, which, to the extent appealed from, dismissed plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) claim, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion to dismiss plaintiff's § 240(1) claim denied and said claim is reinstated.

Plaintiff, a journeyman electrician, was employed by third-party defendant Coyne, an electrical subcontractor.   Coyne was hired to do the electrical work on a 30-story construction project by MK West Street Co. and Marson Construction Corp., the owner and general contractor, respectively.   Coyne's responsibilities on the project included providing a system of temporary lighting to assist the workers on the construction site.   While performing this function, plaintiff placed a ladder in a darkened room next to a bucket, which he did not see.   Plaintiff climbed the ladder and placed a light bulb in the empty fixture, and while descending between the second and first rungs, his foot hit the 14-inch high bucket, causing him to fall and injure himself.

 Plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action should not have been dismissed since his actions herein fell within the statute's enumerated activities.   Plaintiff was not merely changing a lightbulb in conjunction with ordinary maintenance activities (cf., Smith v. Shell Oil Co., 85 N.Y.2d 1000, 1002, 630 N.Y.S.2d 962, 654 N.E.2d 1210).   Rather, plaintiff's duties concerning the lighting were clearly related to, and an integral part of, the construction work being accomplished by the workers at the site (see, Clemente v. Growing Tunneling Corp., 235 A.D.2d 331, 653 N.Y.S.2d 922;  Covey v. Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P., 218 A.D.2d 197, 198-200, 637 N.Y.S.2d 992 affd 89 N.Y.2d 952, 655 N.Y.S.2d 854, 678 N.E.2d 466;  see generally, Lombardi v. Stout, 80 N.Y.2d 290, 296, 590 N.Y.S.2d 55, 604 N.E.2d 117;  cf. Bermel v. Board of Education of New York, 231 A.D.2d 663, 647 N.Y.S.2d 548;  Santagate v. Town of Yorktown, 226 A.D.2d 519, 641 N.Y.S.2d 339).

 Nor does the fact that plaintiff fell only a short distance remove this incident from the purview of the statute, since falling from the bottom rung of a ladder at a construction site is the type of elevation-related risk the statute was intended to cover (see, Norton v. John P. Bell & Sons, 237 A.D.2d 928, 929, 654 N.Y.S.2d 512, 513;  Guillory v. Nautilus Real Estate, 208 A.D.2d 336, 624 N.Y.S.2d 110, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 881, 635 N.Y.S.2d 943, 659 N.E.2d 766;  see also, Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 509, 577 N.Y.S.2d 219, 583 N.E.2d 932).

MEMORANDUM DECISION.