Molloy v. 750 7th Avenue Associates
Opinion of the Court
—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered August 18, 1997, which, in this action for personal injuries brought pursuant to Labor
We agree with the motion court that plaintiffs work changing elevator contacts and cables, putting new chips in computer boards and painting and cleaning the elevator motor room was mere routine maintenance activity and, as such, not akin to the significant structural work involved in Joblon v Solow (91 NY2d 457), and, accordingly, did not function to bring plaintiff within the protective ambit of Labor Law § 241 (6). However, upon our review of the record, we find that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant had constructive notice of the slippery foreign substance alleged to have caused plaintiffs fall, and the existence of that factual issue precludes summary disposition of plaintiffs Labor Law § 200 cause of action (cf., McCormack v Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 233 AD2d 203). Concur — Lerner, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Rubin and Williams, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.