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.
Francisco OJEDA, respondent, v. PEAK JANITORIAL SERVICES, INC., et al., appellants.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants Peak Janitorial Services, Inc., and Reliable Cleaning Systems, Inc., appeal, and the defendant Marymount College separately appeals, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), entered November 12, 1998, as, upon an order of the same court (Colabella, J.), dated February 8, 1996, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability against the defendant Marymount College pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), and granted the motion of the defendant Marymount College for summary judgment on its claim for indemnification against the defendants Peak Janitorial Services, Inc., and Reliable Cleaning Systems, Inc., and upon a jury verdict on the issue of damages, is in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Marymount College in the principal sum of $715,000.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The plaintiff was employed by the defendants Peak Janitorial Services, Inc., and Reliable Cleaning Systems, Inc. (hereinafter collectively Peak). Peak contracted with the defendant Marymount College (hereinafter Marymount) to clean the windows in certain buildings on Marymount's campus. The plaintiff was cleaning the windows pursuant to the agreement when his safety belt broke, causing him to fall to the ground and sustain serious injuries.
Contrary to the contentions of Peak and Marymount, Labor Law § 240(1) is applicable to claims by window cleaners who are injured as a result of the elevation-related risks inherent in their work (see, Williamson v. 16 W. 57th St. Co., 256 A.D.2d 507, 509, 683 N.Y.S.2d 548; see also, Koenig v. Patrick Constr. Corp., 298 N.Y. 313, 83 N.E.2d 133; Retamal v. Miriam Osborne Mem. Home Assn., 256 A.D.2d 506, 507, 682 N.Y.S.2d 409; Cruz v. Bridge Harbor Hgts. Assocs., 249 A.D.2d 44, 45, 671 N.Y.S.2d 72; Terry v. Young Men's Hebrew Assn., 168 A.D.2d 399, 400, 563 N.Y.S.2d 408, affd. 78 N.Y.2d 978, 574 N.Y.S.2d 935, 580 N.E.2d 407), and the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment against Marymount on the issue of liability.
In view of the foregoing, we do not reach the defendants' remaining contentions.
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: March 13, 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)