3 N.Y.3d 46 (2004)

A building owner is not strictly liable under Labor Law § 240(1) for injuries sustained by a cable technician performing work on its property without the owner’s knowledge or consent, especially when the work constitutes routine maintenance.

Summary

This case addresses whether a building owner can be held strictly liable under Labor Law § 240(1) for injuries to a cable technician who was working on the property without the owner’s awareness or permission. Anthony Abbatiello, a cable technician, was injured when a ladder he was using to access a cable junction box on Lancaster Studio Associates’ building bent, causing him to fall. Lancaster had no prior notice that Abbatiello would be on the premises. The Court of Appeals held that Lancaster was not liable under Labor Law § 240(1). The Court reasoned that Abbatiello was not an “employee” for purposes of the statute because there was no nexus between the owner and the worker, and the work being performed constituted routine maintenance.

Facts

Anthony Abbatiello, a cable technician for Paragon Cable Manhattan, was dispatched to Lancaster Studio Associates’ building in response to a tenant’s complaint about cable service. Lancaster had no prior notice that Abbatiello would be on the property. Abbatiello, unable to reach the tenant, located the junction box (15-20 feet above ground). While Abbatiello was inspecting the box from a ladder, the ladder bent, causing him to fall and sustain injuries.

Procedural History

Abbatiello sued Lancaster, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. Lancaster brought a third-party action against Paragon, who counterclaimed. Supreme Court granted Lancaster’s and Paragon’s motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding no Labor Law § 240(1) liability because the owner did not authorize the work and the work was routine maintenance. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s ruling.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a building owner can be held strictly liable under Labor Law § 240(1) for injuries sustained by a cable technician performing work on its property without the owner’s knowledge or consent.
2. Whether the work performed by the cable technician constitutes “repairing, altering” or other activities covered by Labor Law § 240(1), or whether it constitutes routine maintenance.

Holding

1. No, because the injured plaintiff was on the owner’s premises not by reason of any action of the owner but by reason of provisions of the Public Service Law, and thus, the plaintiff was not an employee for the purposes of Labor Law § 240(1).
2. No, because the work involved the routine maintenance of a malfunctioning cable box.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals held that to be covered under Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must demonstrate that they were “permitted or suffered to work on a building or structure and that he was hired by someone, be it [the] owner, contractor or their agent” (Whelen v Warwick Val. Civic & Social Club, 47 NY2d 970, 971 [1979]). The court distinguished this case from precedents like Celestine v City of New York, 86 AD2d 592 [2d Dept 1982], where liability was imposed on owners, because those cases involved some nexus between the owner and the worker (e.g., a lease agreement). Here, the technician’s presence was mandated by Public Service Law § 228, which requires landlords to allow cable installation. The court stated:

“Lancaster cannot be charged with the duty of providing the safe working conditions contemplated by Labor Law § 240 (1) for cable television repair people of whom it is wholly unaware…Any permission to work on the premises was granted upon compulsion and no relationship existed between Lancaster and Paragon or the plaintiff.”

Furthermore, the court agreed with the Appellate Division that the work being performed was routine maintenance, similar to Esposito v New York City Indus. Dev. Agency, 1 NY3d 526 (2003). The court stated that the technician was addressing “a common problem caused by rainwater accumulating in junction boxes affixed to building exteriors.” Therefore, the work did not constitute “repairing” as contemplated by Labor Law § 240(1). The court emphasized that imposing liability on the owner in this situation would create a new liability not envisioned by the Legislature.