Blog

Construction Site Accidents

Car Accidents

Slip/Trip and Fall Accidents

Child Injuries

Defective Products

General

New York Business Litigation Attorney | New York Breach of Contract Attorney

view all

News

view all

Library

Construction Site Accidents

view all

Car Accidents

view all

Slip/Trip and Fall Accidents

view all

Child Injuries

view all

Defective Products

view all

Newsletters

view all

General

view all

Case Results

Construction Site Accidents

more

Car Accidents

more

Slip/Trip and Fall Accidents

more

Child Injuries

more

Defective Products

more

Other

more

FAQs

Construction Site Accidents

Car Accidents

Slip/Trip and Fall Accidents

Child Injuries

Defective Products

General

view all

1.866.374.1164
Blog Category:

Construction Site Accidents

2/1/2010
Jonathan Cooper
Comments (0)

What Types of Accidents Constitute "Repair" Work Under New York Labor Law §240(1)?

As set forth in my earlier articles, "Construction Accident Liability Under New York Law" and "How To Prove A Construction Site Accident Case," one of the principal theories under which a construction site worker can recover for his work-related is pursuant to New York Labor Law §240(1), which imposes upon contractors and building owners a non-delegable duty to provide certain safety equipment for workers engaged in the "…erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure."

So what about the case where the plaintiff is performing work that is ancillary to a repair, such as where he was directed to push bakery racks to make the repair to the bakery's conveyor belts?

A trial court in Rockland County recently held that notwithstanding that this accident did not occur on a formal "worksite," the plaintiff could still recover under the Labor Law.

In Mielnick v. Demarest Mill Realty, a trial court in Rockland County recently held in  that "It is well settled that Labor Law §240(1) …is to be construed as liberally as may be for the accomplishment of the purpose for which it was framed." Citing to another opinion of the Court of Appeals (New York's highest Court), the trial court stated that "Labor Law §240(1) protection is not limited to work performed on actual construction sites. Joblon v. Solow, 91 N.Y.2d 457, 1998."

Thus, while changing a lightbulb, for example will not constitute actionable "repair work" under the statute, the Court is obliged to consider the following factors in determining whether or not the plaintiff's particular activity can give rise to a viable construction site accident claim:

1) whether the work "…involved replacing components that require replacement in the course of normal wear and tear"; and,
2) whether the equipment being worked upon was inoperable or not functioning properly.

I am willing to bet the ranch that the defendants will be appealing this decision.



Long Island, New York  child accident attorney, construction site accident and personal injury lawyer Jonathan Cooper practices in Nassau, Queens, Brooklyn, Bronx, New York City and Westchester. In order to order a FREE copy of his Book on New York accident lawsuits entitled "Why Most Accident Victims Do Not Recover the Full Value of Their Claim," or to schedule a free consultation with Mr. Cooper, please contact his main office located in Cedarhurst, Long Island at 516.791.5700.
Bookmark and Share


There are no comments.

Post a comment

Post a Comment to "What Types of Accidents Constitute "Repair" Work Under New York Labor Law §240(1)?"

To reply to this message, enter your reply in the box labeled "Message", hit "Post Message."

Name:*

Email:* (will not be published)

Website:

Message:

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

For security purposes, please enter the graphic text in the box below: [hit F5 if you can not read the text]