Brown v. Christopher Street Owners Corp.
Decision Date | 13 February 1996 |
Citation | 641 N.Y.S.2d 221,663 N.E.2d 1251,87 N.Y.2d 938 |
Parties | , 663 N.E.2d 1251 Arthur BROWN, Appellant, v. CHRISTOPHER STREET OWNERS CORP. et al., Respondents. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 211 A.D.2d 441, 620 N.Y.S.2d 374, should be affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff Arthur Brown was injured when he fell from the second-floor ledge of a cooperative apartment building in lower Manhattan. Defendant Anne Hack had hired plaintiff to wash the windows of her one-bedroom apartment and, at the time of his fall, plaintiff was attempting to wash the exterior of one of the windows.
Although Labor Law § 240(1), the first section of Labor Law article 10 ("Building Construction, Demolition and Repair Work"), provides for absolute liability against any contractor or owner who fails to furnish an employee with the appropriate scaffolding, ladders, slings or other safety devices during the "erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, [or] cleaning" of a building, the "cleaning" encompassed under the statute does not include the routine, household window washing at issue here (Connors v. Boorstein, 4 N.Y.2d 172, 175, 173 N.Y.S.2d 288, 149 N.E.2d 721). Unlike the painting of a house (Rivers v. Sauter, 26 N.Y.2d 260, 309 N.Y.S.2d 897, 258 N.E.2d 191) or the cleaning of all the windows of a large, nonresidential structure such as a school (Koenig v. Patrick Constr. Corp., 298 N.Y. 313, 83 N.E.2d 133), the routine cleaning of the five windows of a single cooperative apartment by an individual engaged by the apartment owner is not the kind of undertaking for which the Legislature sought to impose liability under Labor Law § 240.
In light of the parties' failure to address Labor Law § 202 () in their briefs, we do not reach the question whether it provides the exclusive Labor Law remedy in cases such as this involving window cleaning (see, Terry v. Young Men's Hebrew...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Herrera v. Ray's Home Improvement, 2008 NY Slip Op 30825(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 3/13/2008)
...cooperative owners. Brown v. Christopher Street Owners, 211 A.D.2d 441, 620 N.Y.S.2d 374 (1st Dept.1995); aff'd, 87 N.Y.2d 938, 641 N.Y.S.2d 221, 663 N.E.2d 1251 (1996); DeNota v. 45 East 85th St. Corp., 163 Misc.2d 734, 622 N.Y.S.2d 192 (1995). See, also, Putnam v. Karaco Industries Corp.,......
-
Chapman v. International Business Machines Corp.
...residence, i.e. a single cooperative apartment, by a person engaged by the residential owner (see, Brown v. Christopher St. Owners Corp., 87 N.Y.2d 938, 641 N.Y.S.2d 221, 663 N.E.2d 1251; see also, Connors v. Boorstein, 4 N.Y.2d 172, 173 N.Y.S.2d 288, 149 N.E.2d 721; Aviles v. Crystal Mgt.,......
-
Goodwin v. Dix Hills Jewish Ctr.
...695 N.E.2d 237, citing Smith v. Shell Oil Co., 85 N.Y.2d 1000, 630 N.Y.S.2d 962, 654 N.E.2d 1210 and Brown v. Christopher St. Owners Corp., 87 N.Y.2d 938, 641 N.Y.S.2d 221, 663 N.E.2d 1251 ; see Hatfield v. Bridgedale, LLC, 28 A.D.3d 608, 609, 814 N.Y.S.2d 659 ). Here, the plaintiff was eng......
-
Joblon v. Solow
...the sign. Similarly, the minimal cleaning of windows we deemed beyond the reach of the statute in Brown v. Christopher St. Owners Corp., 87 N.Y.2d 938, 641 N.Y.S.2d 221, 663 N.E.2d 1251, rearg. denied 88 N.Y.2d 875, 645 N.Y.S.2d 449, 668 N.E.2d 420, also might well be an alteration under su......