DeKenipp v. Rockefeller Center, Inc.

60 A.D.3d 550, 876 N.Y.S.2d 364
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 24, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 60 A.D.3d 550 (DeKenipp v. Rockefeller Center, Inc.) 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
DeKenipp v. Rockefeller Center, Inc., 60 A.D.3d 550, 876 N.Y.S.2d 364 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered October 16, 2008, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiffs motion for renewal and reargument of an order dated November 14, 2007 granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and, upon reargument, vacated said dismissal and granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, a window washer employed by a private contractor that defendants hired, was instructed by his supervisor to clean the interior windows of defendants’ building. Plaintiff had previously cleaned these windows, and requested that his supervisor provide a pole extension that allowed him to reach their upper portions. This request was denied and thus, plaintiff had to stand atop three-to-four-foot-high, wall-mounted, heating convector covers to reach the windows’ upper areas. While plaintiff worked on one window, the convector cover he stood on suddenly came loose from the wall and he fell, injuring himself.

We find that the window-washing task here involved an elevation-related risk of the type contemplated by the safety devices listed in Labor Law § 240 (1) (see e.g. Swiderska v New York Univ., 10 NY3d 792, 792-793 [2008]). Plaintiff was effectively instructed to stand on the convector covers to get the job done, a practice established by record evidence as being routinely used by workers to access the building’s windows and ceilings. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

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

Related

Braganca-Ferreira v. SREP 10th Ave. Venture LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 03241 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Mieles v. 122 Mott Realty Corp.
2025 NY Slip Op 30517(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Masullo v. 1199 Housing Corp.
63 A.D.3d 430 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 A.D.3d 550, 876 N.Y.S.2d 364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dekenipp-v-rockefeller-center-inc-nyappdiv-2009.