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.
John BREEDEN, et al., appellants, v. SUNSET INDUSTRIAL PARK ASSOCIATES, etc., et al., respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.), entered June 7, 1999, which granted the separate motions of the defendants Sunset Industrial Park Associates, James McKeon, and Alfonso Figliolia, and the defendant ADT Security Services, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, and denied their cross motion for partial summary judgment.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The plaintiff John Breeden, a telephone repairman, was injured when he fell from a ladder while investigating a nonworking telephone line. The work performed by the injured plaintiff at the time of the accident was routine maintenance of a nonworking telephone line and did not constitute “erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) so as to bring him within the protective ambit of the statute (see, Joblon v. Solow, 91 N.Y.2d 457, 672 N.Y.S.2d 286, 695 N.E.2d 237; Pound v. A.V.R. Realty Corp., 271 A.D.2d 424, 706 N.Y.S.2d 886).
The injured plaintiff was not covered by Labor Law § 241(6), also because no construction, excavation, or demolition work was being performed (see, Rogala v. Van Bourgondien, 263 A.D.2d 535, 693 N.Y.S.2d 204; Luthi v. Long Is. Resource Corp., 251 A.D.2d 554, 674 N.Y.S.2d 747).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
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: September 18, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
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)