Katz v. Press Management Corp.
| Decision Date | 03 February 1983 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
| Parties | Alan A. KATZ, Plaintiff, v. PRESS MANAGEMENT CORP. and CC McK Food & Beverage Ltd., Defendants. |
In these motions and cross motions for summary judgment the parties have raised two issues under section 240 of the Labor Law which are apparently of the first impression. Pleadings have been exchanged, depositions have been held, and plaintiff has provided a bill of particulars upon the demand of defendant Press Management Corp. (Press Management).
The essential facts are not in dispute.
Plaintiff was hired by defendant CC McK Food & Beverage Ltd. (CC McK) to install decorations in a portion of a building owned by Press Management. This portion of the building was leased or to be leased by Press Management to CC McK. CC McK intended to operate the property as a restaurant. It was at liberty to alter the premises and did so. Alterations included the removal of a fireplace, removal of some walls and partitions, construction of a bar and relocation of entrances.
It is uncontradicted that, at a time contemporaneous with the above alterations, plaintiff was hired by CC McK to purchase and install 228 rolls of wallpaper, provide table cloths, upholster booths and install aluminum blinds upon the leased premises. It is also uncontradicted that on November 17, 1981, while attempting to install some of the wallpaper he was to provide, plaintiff fell from a ladder on the defendants' premises. In his deposition plaintiff states that the ladder he was using was one he borrowed from a third party. He stated the ladder was one made for use upon stairs and that while he was using it upon the defendants' stairs he "heard a metallic noise and the ladder just disappeared out from under [him]". Plaintiff also states the ladder "went in two directions".
Plaintiff now seeks to recover for the injuries he allegedly sustained in that fall. He relies solely upon section 240 of the Labor Law which provides, in pertinent part, that "[a]ll contractors and owners and their agents, except owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work, in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of such labor ... ladders ... which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed".
Defendants first urge that as plaintiff was solely installing wallpaper at the time of the accident, he was not of the class of laborers to be protected under section 240. Research has disclosed no case which has declared a paperhanger to be within or without the scope of the section. However, the court does not hesitate to declare, under the uncontradicted circumstances presented in this case, that this plaintiff is so protected. Of note is the case Struble v. John Arborio, Inc., 74 A.D.2d 55, 426 N.Y.S.2d 592. In that case the court held that a person who fell from a catwalk while dismantling a crane was entitled to protection of the statute. The court noted, "That the particular work was being performed at a distance from the site of immediate construction is of no consequence, as it is certain that the work was necessitated by virtue of the machine having been used in the construction and was incidental to its movement from the construction area (see Ploof v. B.I.M. Truck Serv., 53 A.D.2d 750 )" (Struble v. John Arborio, Inc., supra, p. 57, 426 N.Y.S.2d 592). In Ploof the same court noted that the intent of section 240 of the Labor Law "is to seek extra protection for workmen working on any structure who use dangerous equipment, as defined in the statute, such as scaffolds, joists, ladders, pulleys and ropes" (53 A.D.2d 750, 751, 384 N.Y.S.2d 521, mot. for lv. to app. den. 40 N.Y.2d 803, 387 N.Y.S.2d 1030, 356 N.E.2d 482). Thus there is some recognition that the Legislature did not intend to solely protect only those employed in the particular types of work enumerated. Rather the Legislature looks to protect a general class of work involving the use of scaffolds and ladders. In the present case, the fact that the particular work was not specifically included by name does not prevent its inclusion by intent. Here the paperhanging was as much a part of the alterations of the building as the removal of the fireplace, doors and walls. The wallpapering was both necessary and incidental thereto. As such we have no doubt that this plaintiff is entitled to the statute's protection and defendant CC McK's cross motion is denied.
Defendant Press Management asserts that it should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
La Fontaine v. Albany Management Inc.
...trial level in which wallpapering was held to be a covered activity under Labor Law § 240(1), i.e., altering (see, Katz v. Press Mgmt. Corp., 117 Misc.2d 870, 459 N.Y.S.2d 383). That decision is materially distinguishable from this case in that the wallpapering therein was an integral part ......
-
Ramos v. Marksue Realty Corp., 83 Civ. 3498 (LBS).
...specifically enumerated in Section 240, this does not prevent its inclusion by implication. In point is Katz v. Press Management Corp., 117 Misc.2d 870, 459 N.Y.S.2d 383 (Sup.Ct.1983), where the Court determined in a question of first impression, that a wallpaper hanger, injured when his la......
-
Renn v. Airline of Finland
...That is not to say that a lessee may never be considered an "owner" pursuant to the terms of § 240(1). In Katz v. Press Management Corp., 117 Misc.2d 870, 459 N.Y.S.2d 383 (Sup.Ct., Broome Co., 1983) the court interpreted § 240(1) by looking to the definition of "owner" in Article 11, Title......
-
Novell v. Carney Elec. Const. Corp.
...240(1) was an owner. Buonassisi v. Sears Roebuck & Company, 43 A.D.2d 701, 350 N.Y.S.2d 5 (2nd Dept.1973); Katz v. Press Management Corp., 117 Misc.2d 870, 459 N.Y.S.2d 383 (Sup.Ct. Broom Co. 1983).2 The court concluded to submit the issues raised by the Worker's Compensation defense to the......