Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Sophia MELSKI, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Patrick Melski, Deceased, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. FITZPATRICK & WELLER, INC., Defendant–Respondent.
Fitzpatrick & Weller, Inc., Third–Party Plaintiff, v. Nicholson & Hall Corp., Third–Party Defendant–Respondent.
Plaintiff's decedent fell from a ladder and was injured while performing work on a boiler at a hardwood lumber plant operated by defendant. Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1) and 241(6), as well as for common-law negligence, and Supreme Court granted the motions of defendant and third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. Plaintiff contends on appeal that the court erred in granting those parts of the motions with respect to the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims inasmuch as decedent was engaged in a protected activity at the time he was injured. We reject that contention. With respect to section 240(1), defendant and third-party defendant met their initial burden of establishing that decedent was not performing one of the protected activities enumerated in the statute but, rather, was involved in routine maintenance in a non-construction, non-renovation context (see Smith v. Shell Oil Co., 85 N.Y.2d 1000, 1002; Noah v. IBC Acquisition Corp., 262 A.D.2d 1037, 1037, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 1042). Specifically, defendant and third-party defendant established that decedent's work involved replacing components that required replacement in the course of normal wear and tear, and thus that work did not involve repairing or any of the other activities enumerated in section 240(1) (see Esposito v. New York City Indus. Dev. Agency, 1 NY3d 526, 528). With respect to section 241(6), defendant and third-party defendant met their burden of establishing that decedent did not perform his work in the context of construction, demolition or excavation (see Nagel v. D & R Realty Corp., 99 N.Y.2d 98, 102–103). Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to either statute (see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 07, 2013
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)