Schroeder v. Kalenak Painting & Paperhanging, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals

Schroeder v. Kalenak Painting & Paperhanging, Inc.

854 N.E.2d 1268, 7 N.Y.3d 797, 2006 NY Slip Op 6317, 821 N.Y.S.2d 804, 2006 N.Y. LEXIS 2109

New York Court of Appeals·Decided August 29, 2006·Published·Cited by 23 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff concedes that wallpapering is not an enumerated activity under the Labor Law (see Labor Law § 240 [1]). Moreover, plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to estáblish that her work was part of a larger renovation project subject to coverage under the statute (see Martinez v City of New York, 93 NY2d 322, 326 [1999]; cf. Prats v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 100 NY2d 878 [2003]). Plaintiff’s section 241 (6) argument is similarly without merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff concedes that wallpapering is not an enumerated activity under the Labor Law (see Labor Law § 240 [1]). Moreover, plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to estáblish that her work was part of a larger renovation project subject to coverage under the statute (see Martinez v City of New York, 93 NY2d 322, 326 [1999]; cf. Prats v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 100 NY2d 878 [2003]). Plaintiff’s section 241 (6) argument is similarly without merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Schroeder v. Kalenak Painting & Paperhanging, Inc., 854 N.E.2d 1268, 7 N.Y.3d 797, 2006 NY Slip Op 6317, 821 N.Y.S.2d 804, 2006 N.Y. LEXIS 2109 (N.Y. 2006).

Pincite

854 N.E.2d 1268 (Schroeder v. Kalenak Painting & Paperhanging, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related