Riccio v. Nht Owners, LLC
Decision Date | 20 May 2008 |
Docket Number | 2007-01266. |
Parties | ROBERT RICCIO, Respondent-Appellant, v. NHT OWNERS, LLC, et al., Appellants-Respondents. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiff, an elevator mechanic, was injured while replacing a hoistway door track on a malfunctioning elevator located in a building owned by NHT Owners, LLC (hereinafter NHT), and managed by Mallory Management Corp. (hereinafter Mallory). Along with a helper, the plaintiff was sent by his employer Vertical Elevator Co., Inc. (hereinafter Vertical) to replace the door track. The plaintiff brought a stackable ladder with him from Vertical's office, and his helper obtained an eight-foot-long A-frame ladder from the building's superintendent. The plaintiff set up the stackable ladder and his helper set up the A-frame ladder, and they were both working side-by-side in the "pit" of the elevator, that is, the area below the elevator cab. When the helper was having trouble installing bolts on the door track while on the A-frame ladder, he left the pit, while the plaintiff ascended the A-frame ladder to install the bolts. As the plaintiff stood on the second and third step from the top of the ladder, with a ratchet in his right hand and his left hand grabbing the newly-installed door track, he felt the ladder move and fell backwards approximately five feet to the ground.
The plaintiff thereafter commenced this action against NHT and Mallory (hereinafter the defendants), among others, alleging causes of action based on common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and § 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the cause of action based on Labor Law § 240 (1), and denied those branches of the defendants' motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action based on common-law negligence, Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1), and so much of the cause of action based on Labor Law § 241 (6) as was predicated upon an alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.21 (a) and (b). The defendants appeal and the plaintiff cross-appeals. We affirm.
"Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners and contractors to provide or cause to be furnished certain safety devices for workers at an elevated work site, and the absence of appropriate safety devices constitutes a violation of the statute as a matter of law" (Andino v BFC Partners, 303 AD2d 338, 339 [2003]). However, the statute protects workers engaged only in certain enumerated activities. For example, the statute covers repairs to a building or structure (see Labor Law § 240 [1]). However, it does not cover "routine maintenance in a nonconstruction, nonrenovation context" (Diaz v Applied Digital Data Sys., 300 AD2d 533, 535 [2002]; see Koch v E.C.H. Holding Corp., 248 AD2d 510, 511 [1998]). The question of whether a particular activity constitutes a "repair" or "routine maintenance" must be determined on a case-by-case basis (see Prats v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 100 NY2d 878, 883 [2003]). Contrary to the defendants' contention, at the time of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Przyborowski v. A&M Cook, LLC
... ... Renaissance 632 Broadway, LLC, 103 A.D.3d 883, 885, 962 N.Y.S.2d 200; Melchor v. Singh, 90 A.D.3d 866, 870, 935 N.Y.S.2d 106; Riccio v. NHT Owners, LLC, 51 A.D.3d 897, 899, 858 N.Y.S.2d 363; Cun–En Lin v. Holy Family Monuments, 18 A.D.3d 800, 802, 796 N.Y.S.2d 684; but cf ... ...
-
Bokiev v. 13th Ave. Retail Holdings 35
...90 A.D.3d 866, 870 [2d Dept 2011] [Industrial Code §§ 23-1.21 (b) (3) (iv) and 1.21 (b) (4) (ii) & (iv)]; Riccio v NUT Owners, LLC, 51 A.D.3d 897. 899 [2d Dept 2008] [§§ 23-1.21 (b) (1) and (3) (iv)]; Martinez v St-Dil LLC, 192 A.D.3d 511, 513 [1st Dept 2021] [§§ 23-1.21 (b) (4) (ii) and (i......
-
Seferovic v. Atl. Real Estate Holdings, LLC
... ... Second, Sigma failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to its duty under Labor Law 240(1). Labor Law 240(1) applies to owners, contractors, and their agents (see Labor Law 240[1] ; Alfonso v. Pacific Classon Realty, LLC, 101 A.D.3d 768, 770, 956 N.Y.S.2d 111 ; Guclu v. 900 ... Fusca v. A & S Constr., LLC, 84 A.D.3d 1155, 11561157, 924 N.Y.S.2d 463 ; Riccio v. NHT Owners, LLC; 51 A.D.3d 897, 899, 858 N.Y.S.2d 363 ; Ferrero v. Best Modular Homes, Inc., 33 A.D.3d 847, 851852, 823 N.Y.S.2d 477 ) ... ...
-
Reid v. Top 8 Construction Corp., 2009 NY Slip Op 31322(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 6/11/2009), 12713/07.
... ... See, Zuckerman v. City of New York, supra ... Labor Law § 240(1) imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners and contractors to provide or cause to be furnished certain safety devices for workers at an elevated work site, including the provision of safety ... Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494 (1993); Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 509 (1991); Riccio v. NHT Owners, LLC, 51 A.D.3d 897 (2nd Dept. 2008); Cambry v. Lincoln Gardens, 50 A.D.3d 1081 (2nd Dept. 2008); Natale v. City of New York, 33 A.D.3d ... ...
-
Labor Law ' 240(1) Summary Judgment Motions In The Appellate Division In 2021
...activity constitutes a 'repair' or 'routine maintenance' must be determined on a case-by-case basis." Riccio v NHT Owners, LLC., 51 A.D.3d 897, 899 (2d Dep't 2008). In making such determinations, courts must weigh various factors, including the complexity and scope of the work. Additionally......