10 N.Y.3d 792 (2008)

Commercial window cleaning, comparable to the activity at issue, falls under Labor Law § 240(1) if it involves elevation-related risks that the statute aims to address and the worker is not provided with adequate safety devices.

Summary

The plaintiff, a commercial cleaner, was injured while cleaning high interior windows in a dormitory, having been instructed to climb on furniture instead of being provided a ladder. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts’ rulings, holding that the plaintiff was entitled to partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1). The court reasoned that the activity created an elevation-related risk contemplated by the statute, as the plaintiff was required to climb on furniture to reach the high windows and was not provided with proper safety equipment such as a ladder or scaffold.

Facts

The plaintiff’s employer, under a commercial cleaning contract, instructed her to clean 10-foot-high interior windows in a dormitory. She was given only a rag and window washing solution. When she requested a ladder, she was told to use furniture instead. While standing on a bed to clean a window, the plaintiff fell and sustained multiple fractures and other injuries.

Procedural History

The plaintiff brought a Labor Law § 240(1) action against the defendants. The lower courts granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, reasoning that the plaintiff’s activity constituted routine maintenance not covered by the statute. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division order, granted the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment as to liability, and denied the defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment.

Issue(s)

Whether the plaintiff’s activity of cleaning high windows by climbing on furniture, without proper safety devices, constitutes an elevation-related risk covered under Labor Law § 240(1), thus entitling her to summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Holding

Yes, because the plaintiff was injured while cleaning 10-foot-high windows, and was required to climb upon furniture in order to complete her work—creating an elevation-related risk— and she was not provided a ladder, scaffold or other safety device of the kind contemplated under the statute.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals relied on its prior decision in Broggy v. Rockefeller Group, Inc., which held that commercial window cleaning is covered by Labor Law § 240(1) if it involves an elevation-related risk. The court reasoned that in this case, the plaintiff established that she was injured while cleaning high windows in a college dormitory with a rag, and was required to climb upon furniture to complete her work. This created precisely the type of elevation-related risk that the statute was intended to address. The Court emphasized that the plaintiff was not provided with a ladder, scaffold, or other safety device as required by the statute. The court concluded that the lower courts erred in characterizing the plaintiff’s activity as routine maintenance, as the circumstances clearly indicated a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). The absence of appropriate safety equipment to mitigate the elevation-related risk was the decisive factor in the court’s determination.