Cordero v. SL Green Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cordero v. SL Green Realty Corp.

38 A.D.3d 202, 831 N.Y.S.2d 145

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 1, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 202 (Cordero v. SL Green Realty Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cordero v. SL Green Realty Corp., 38 A.D.3d 202, 831 N.Y.S.2d 145 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered June 26, 2006, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ and third-party defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs causes of action under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6), and denied plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously modified, on the law, to grant defendants’ and third-party defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissal, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiffs work replacing metal worn-out slats in a roll-down motorized security gate that had been fully installed and operational for years amounted to component replacement in the course of normal wear and tear, i.e., routine maintenance not covered by Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Esposito v New York City Indus. Dev. Agency, 1 NY3d 526, 528 [2003]; Abbatiello v Lancaster Studio Assoc., 3 NY3d 46, 53 [2004]; Arevalo v Nasdaq Stock Mkt., Inc., 28 AD3d 242, 243 [2006]). Nor does plaintiff have a claim under Labor Law § 241 (6), which applies only in construction, demolition or excavation contexts (see Esposito, 1 NY3d at 528; Maes v 408 W. 39 LLC, 24 AD3d 298, 300-301 [2005], lv denied 7 NY3d 716 [2006]). Concur—Tom, J.P, Sullivan, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered June 26, 2006, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ and third-party defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs causes of action under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6), and denied plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), unanimously modified, on the law, to grant defendants’ and third-party defendants’ motions for summary judgment dismissal, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiffs work replacing metal worn-out slats in a roll-down motorized security gate that had been fully installed and operational for years amounted to component replacement in the course of normal wear and tear, i.e., routine maintenance not covered by Labor Law § 240 (1) (see Esposito v New York City Indus. Dev. Agency, 1 NY3d 526, 528 [2003]; Abbatiello v Lancaster Studio Assoc., 3 NY3d 46, 53 [2004]; Arevalo v Nasdaq Stock Mkt., Inc., 28 AD3d 242, 243 [2006]). Nor does plaintiff have a claim under Labor Law § 241 (6), which applies only in construction, demolition or excavation contexts (see Esposito, 1 NY3d at 528; Maes v 408 W. 39 LLC, 24 AD3d 298, 300-301 [2005], lv denied 7 NY3d 716 [2006]). Concur—Tom, J.P, Sullivan, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 202, 831 N.Y.S.2d 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cordero-v-sl-green-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack