Esposito v. New York City Indus. Dev. Agency, 1 N.Y.3d 526 (2003)

Labor Law § 240(1), which imposes absolute liability on owners and contractors for elevation-related risks, does not extend to injuries sustained during routine maintenance, as distinguished from repairing, altering, or other enumerated activities.

Summary

Plaintiff, a maintenance worker, was injured when he fell from a ladder while attempting to remove a cover from an air conditioning unit during a routine monthly maintenance check. He sued under Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6). The Court of Appeals held that § 240(1) did not apply because the work constituted routine maintenance, not repairing. The court also found § 241(6) inapplicable outside of construction, demolition, or excavation contexts. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision dismissing the claims.

Facts

Plaintiff was a member of Local 94 Operating Engineers Union, which performed maintenance for a commercial building. He was conducting a monthly maintenance check of air conditioning units. He discovered a low amperage reading and heavy vibrations in a unit, indicating worn components. He returned with tools and parts to address the issue. While climbing a ladder to remove the unit’s cover, the ladder “kicked out,” causing him to fall and sustain injuries.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court initially held that the plaintiff could not sustain a claim under Labor Law § 240(1). The Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals then affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the plaintiff’s activities at the time of the accident constituted “repairing” under Labor Law § 240(1), or merely routine maintenance.

2. Whether Labor Law § 241(6) applies to maintenance work performed outside the context of construction, demolition, or excavation.

Holding

1. No, because replacing components that require replacement in the course of normal wear and tear constitutes routine maintenance, not “repairing” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1).

2. No, because Labor Law § 241(6) is inapplicable outside the construction, demolition, or excavation contexts.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals distinguished “repairing” from “routine maintenance” under Labor Law § 240(1), citing Smith v. Shell Oil Co., 85 N.Y.2d 1000, 1002 (1995). The court reasoned that the plaintiff’s work involved replacing components that require replacement in the course of normal wear and tear. Therefore, it was routine maintenance, not “repairing” or any other enumerated activity covered by the statute. As for Labor Law § 241(6), the court relied on Nagel v. D & R Realty Corp., 99 N.Y.2d 98 (2002), to reaffirm its holding that § 241(6) is inapplicable outside the construction, demolition, or excavation contexts. The court emphasized a strict interpretation of the statute, focusing on the nature of the work being performed at the time of the injury. The decision underscores the importance of distinguishing between routine upkeep and more extensive repair or alteration work when evaluating claims under New York Labor Law. This case reinforces the principle that Labor Law § 240(1) is not a catch-all for any injury occurring at an elevated height but applies to specific activities with a higher degree of inherent risk related to construction and alteration. The court did not provide specific dissenting or concurring opinions.