Schroeder v. Kalenak Painting & Paperhanging, Inc.
This text of 854 N.E.2d 1268 (Schroeder v. Kalenak Painting & Paperhanging, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
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, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schroeder-v-kalenak-painting-paperhanging-inc-ny-2006.