Martinez v. City of New York, 93 N.Y.2d 322 (1999)
Labor Law § 240(1), which imposes liability on owners and contractors for failing to provide proper safety equipment for elevation-related work, does not extend to preliminary inspection work conducted prior to and separate from any actual construction, repair, or alteration activities enumerated in the statute.
Summary
Walfredo Martinez, an environmental inspector, was injured while measuring an insulation-covered pipe during an asbestos inspection at a school. He sought recovery under Labor Law § 240(1), arguing that the lack of proper safety equipment caused his fall. The New York Court of Appeals held that Martinez’s inspection work, which was preliminary to any actual asbestos removal and performed by a separate entity, did not fall within the scope of Labor Law § 240(1). The Court emphasized that the statute applies to specific activities like erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning, or pointing of a building, none of which were taking place during Martinez’s inspection.
Facts
Martinez was hired as an environmental inspector to work for Kaselaan & D’Angelo Associates, which contracted with the New York City School Construction Authority for asbestos inspection services. His job involved inspecting school buildings, identifying asbestos problem areas, and cataloging the asbestos for future removal. While inspecting P.S. 85 in Queens, Martinez attempted to measure an insulation-covered pipe by climbing onto a desk placed against a tall closet. While reaching for the pipe, he fell and sustained injuries. The asbestos removal itself was to be done by a different company in a later project phase.
Procedural History
Martinez sued the City of New York and others, alleging negligence and violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The Supreme Court denied Martinez’s motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law claim and granted the defendants’ cross-motions for dismissal. The Appellate Division affirmed, with a divided vote. The Court of Appeals granted an appeal based on the two-Judge dissent and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether an environmental inspector, performing preliminary inspection work to identify asbestos prior to any actual removal or abatement, is engaged in an activity covered by Labor Law § 240(1).
Holding
No, because Martinez’s inspection work was merely investigatory and did not constitute “the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure” as required by Labor Law § 240(1).
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals acknowledged that Labor Law § 240(1) should be liberally construed to protect workers. However, the Court emphasized that the statutory language should not be strained to encompass activities the Legislature did not intend to include. The Court found that Martinez’s work was purely investigatory and preliminary. No actual repair, alteration, or other covered activity was underway at the time of his injury. The Court explicitly rejected the lower court’s “integral and necessary part” test, stating that it improperly expanded the scope of the statute. The Court quoted Gibson v. Worthington Div. of McGraw-Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 1108, 1109 stating that the plaintiff was “not a person ‘employed’ to carry out the repairs as that term is used” in section 240(1). The key factor was that Martinez was not engaged in any of the enumerated activities listed in the statute, meaning that summary judgment was inappropriate. The dissent in the appellate division argued that this type of inspection work was “an integral and necessary part of a project that was within the purview of’ Labor Law § 240 (1).” However, the majority found that this would improperly enlarge the reach of the statute.