Nagel v. D & R Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nagel v. D & R Realty Corp.

288 A.D.2d 121, 733 N.Y.S.2d 389, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11098

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

DecidedNovember 20, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 288 A.D.2d 121 (Nagel v. D & R 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

Nagel v. D & R Realty Corp., 288 A.D.2d 121, 733 N.Y.S.2d 389, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11098 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about September 8, 2000, which, in an action for personal injuries under Labor Law § 241 (6) by a laborer against a building owner, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We reject plaintiffs argument that the two-year safety test he was performing on the elevator in defendant’s building when he was injured, is covered by Labor Law § 241 (6). Indeed, he acknowledges it was in the nature of routine preventive maintenance. Although the definition of what constitutes “construction * * * work” under section 241 (6) includes “maintenance” (12 NYCRR 23-1.4 [b] [13]; see, Joblon v Solow, 91 NY2d 457, 466), we have held that it is only such maintenance as involves “significant structural work” (Molloy v 750 7th Ave. Assocs., 256 AD2d 61, 62, distinguishing Joblon v Solow, supra; cf., Jock v Fien, 80 NY2d 965, 967). Since plaintiff performed no work that significantly affected the structure of defendant’s building or elevator, the action was properly dismissed. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered on or about September 8, 2000, which, in an action for personal injuries under Labor Law § 241 (6) by a laborer against a building owner, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We reject plaintiffs argument that the two-year safety test he was performing on the elevator in defendant’s building when he was injured, is covered by Labor Law § 241 (6). Indeed, he acknowledges it was in the nature of routine preventive maintenance. Although the definition of what constitutes “construction * * * work” under section 241 (6) includes “maintenance” (12 NYCRR 23-1.4 [b] [13]; see, Joblon v Solow, 91 NY2d 457, 466), we have held that it is only such maintenance as involves “significant structural work” (Molloy v 750 7th Ave. Assocs., 256 AD2d 61, 62, distinguishing Joblon v Solow, supra; cf., Jock v Fien, 80 NY2d 965, 967). Since plaintiff performed no work that significantly affected the structure of defendant’s building or elevator, the action was properly dismissed. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 121, 733 N.Y.S.2d 389, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nagel-v-d-r-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack