Joy v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Joy v. City of New York

17 A.D.3d 300, 794 N.Y.S.2d 40, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4477

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

DecidedApril 28, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 300 (Joy v. City of New York) 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

Joy v. City of New York, 17 A.D.3d 300, 794 N.Y.S.2d 40, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4477 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered June 14, 2004, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs Labor Law § 241 (6) claim and sua sponte ordered that the City produce a nonparty witness, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the section 241 (6) claim dismissed and the discovery order vacated. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

The fatal injury to plaintiffs deceased, a subway signal maintenance employee, did not fall within the ambit of Labor Law § 241 (6), since it did not occur in the course of “construction, excavation or demolition work.” The record clearly shows that the task the decedent was performing at the time of his injury— testing and inspecting a signal—was in the nature of routine maintenance undertaken over two months after the construction project. Repair of the signal by installation of a track circuit wire was completed by a separate division of the Transit Authority (see Beehner v Eckerd Corp., 3 NY3d 751 [2004]; Martinez v City of New York, 93 NY2d 322 [1999]). As a consequence, Supreme Court’s discovery order, which sought the production of evidence on the issue of whether the decedent was engaged in construction work at the time of his death, is rendered aca[301]*301demic. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Gonzalez, Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered June 14, 2004, which denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs Labor Law § 241 (6) claim and sua sponte ordered that the City produce a nonparty witness, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the section 241 (6) claim dismissed and the discovery order vacated. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint.

The fatal injury to plaintiffs deceased, a subway signal maintenance employee, did not fall within the ambit of Labor Law § 241 (6), since it did not occur in the course of “construction, excavation or demolition work.” The record clearly shows that the task the decedent was performing at the time of his injury— testing and inspecting a signal—was in the nature of routine maintenance undertaken over two months after the construction project. Repair of the signal by installation of a track circuit wire was completed by a separate division of the Transit Authority (see Beehner v Eckerd Corp., 3 NY3d 751 [2004]; Martinez v City of New York, 93 NY2d 322 [1999]). As a consequence, Supreme Court’s discovery order, which sought the production of evidence on the issue of whether the decedent was engaged in construction work at the time of his death, is rendered aca[301]*301demic. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Gonzalez, Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 300, 794 N.Y.S.2d 40, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joy-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack