Santiago v. Fred-Doug 117, L.L.C.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes a duty to protect workers engaged in “the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure.” While “repair” of a broken or malfunctioning item is among the statute’s enumerated activities, “routine maintenance” to prevent malfunction is not covered activity (Esposito v New York City Indus. Dev. Agency, 1 NY3d 526, 528 [2003]; see Craft *556v Clark Trading Corp., 257 AD2d 886, 887 [1999]). Plaintiff testified that he went to the Rite Aid pharmacy in response to a service call that the air conditioning was broken. The…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Blake v. Neighborhood Housing Services of New York City, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2003
- Esposito v. New York City Industrial Development AgencyNew York Court of Appeals · 2003
- Craft v. Clark Trading Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- Meade v. Rock-Mcgraw, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Lovall v. Graves Bros.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Hamill v. Mutual of America Investment Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Noor v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Reyes v. KhanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Roth v. Lenox Terrace AssociatesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017
- Manfredonia v. 750 Astor LLCAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2023
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.