Rammelkamp v. S.L. Building Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rammelkamp v. S.L. Building Co.

270 A.D.2d 4, 703 N.Y.S.2d 724, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2230

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 2, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered June 16, 1999, which, upon the prior grant of defendants’ motions for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint in this action to recover for personal injuries pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We affirm the dismissal of the complaint upon the ground that the work performed by plaintiff at the time of his accident was merely a routine repair of a telephone line and did not constitute “the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) or “construction * * * or demolition” of buildings within the meaning of Labor Law § 241 (6) so as to bring plaintiff within the protective ambit of those statutes (see, Joblon v Solow, 91 NY2d 457; Cosentino v Long Is. R. R., 201 AD2d 528). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered June 16, 1999, which, upon the prior grant of defendants’ motions for summary judgment, dismissed the complaint in this action to recover for personal injuries pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We affirm the dismissal of the complaint upon the ground that the work performed by plaintiff at the time of his accident was merely a routine repair of a telephone line and did not constitute “the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) or “construction * * * or demolition” of buildings within the meaning of Labor Law § 241 (6) so as to bring plaintiff within the protective ambit of those statutes (see, Joblon v Solow, 91 NY2d 457; Cosentino v Long Is. R. R., 201 AD2d 528). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Rammelkamp v. S.L. Building Co., 270 A.D.2d 4, 703 N.Y.S.2d 724, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2230 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

270 A.D.2d 4 (Rammelkamp v. S.L. Building Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related