Brown v. Christopher Street Owners Corp.
Cases that cite this one
58 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Chapman v. International Business Machines Corp. (New York Supreme Court 1998)
- Dahar v. Holland Ladder & Manufacturing Co. (N.Y. 2012)
- Sarigul v. New York Telephone Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Brown v. Christopher Street Owners Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Bauer v. Female Academy of the Sacred Heart (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Williamson v. 16 West 57th Street Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Vernum v. Zilka (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- Sahmanovic v. Kingsbridge Realty Assoc., LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Goodwin v. Dix Hills Jewish Center (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Joseph Saint v. Syracuse Supply Company (N.Y. 2015)
- Joseph Saint v. Syracuse Supply Company (N.Y. 2015)
- BISH, ROBERT v. ODELL FARMS PARTNERSHIP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Bish v. Odell Farms Partnership (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Bish v. Odell Farms Partnership (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Soto v. J. Crew Inc. (N.Y. 2013)
- Wicks v. Trigen-Syracuse Energy Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Belding v. Verizon New York, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Nutley v. Skydive the Ranch (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Padovano v. Teddy's Realty Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Broggy v. Rockefeller Group, Inc. (N.Y. 2007)
- Sanatass v. Consolidated Investing Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Broggy v. Rockefeller Group, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Ahmed v. Momart Discount Store, Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Munoz v. DJZ Realty, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Wright v. Bedevian (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff Arthur Brown was injured when he fell from the second-floor ledge of a cooperative apartment building in lower Manhattan. Defendant Anne Hack had hired plaintiff to wash the windows of her one-bedroom apartment and, at the time of his fall, plaintiff was attempting to wash the exterior of one of the windows.
Although Labor Law § 240 (1), the first section of Labor Law article 10 ("Building Construction, Demolition and Repair Work”), provides for absolute liability against any contractor or owner who fails to furnish an employee with the appropriate scaffolding, ladders, slings or other safety devices during the "erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, [or] cleaning” of a building, the "cleaning” encompassed under the statute does not include the routine, household window washing at issue here (Connors v Boorstein, 4 NY2d 172, 175). Unlike the painting of a house (Rivers v Sauter, 26 NY2d 260) or the cleaning of all the windows of a large, nonresidential structure such as a school (Koenig v Patrick Constr. Corp., 298 NY 313), the routine cleaning of the five windows of a single cooperative apartment by an individual engaged by the apartment owner is not the kind of undertaking for which the Legislature sought to impose liability under Labor Law § 240.
In light of the parties’ failure to address Labor Law § 202 ("Protection of the public and of persons engaged at window cleaning and cleaning of exterior surfaces of buildings”) in their briefs, we do not reach the question whether it provides the exclusive Labor Law remedy in cases such as this involving window cleaning (see, Terry v Young Men’s Hebrew Assn., 78 NY2d 978, 979).
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur; Judge Titone taking no part.
*940 Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.