Esposito v. New York City Industrial Development Agency
Cases that cite this one
111 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Crescent Beach Club LLC v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company (District Court, E.D. New York 2020)
- Caputo v. PNC Bank (District Court, S.D. New York 2005)
- Stockton v. H&E Biffer Enters. No. 2, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Deangelis v. Franklin Plaza Apts., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Dahlia v. S&K Distrib., LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Cremona v. Venture Holding & Mgt. Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Pakenham v. Westmere Realty, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Alexander v. Hart (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Kirk v. Outokumpu American Brass, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Barbarito v. County of Tompkins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Rogers v. DS Restoration & Residential Servs. Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
- Auclair v. Corning Incorporated (District Court, N.D. New York 2024)
- Hamm v. Review Assoc., LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Aponte v. Airport Indus. Park, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Washington-Tatum v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Green v. Evergreen Family Ltd. Partnership (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
- Ortega v. 669 Meeker Ave., LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Teodoro v. C.W. Brown, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Wass v. County of Nassau (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Lopipero v. MTA Long Is. Rail Rd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Garbett v. Wappingers Cent. Sch. Dist. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Tserpelis v. Tamares Real Estate Holdings, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Kearney v. Dynegy, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Ferrigno v. Jaghab, Jaghab & Jaghab, P.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Selca v. Dutchess Heritage Square Partners, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
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
*528 OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff was injured after falling from a ladder while attempting to remove a cover from an air conditioning unit on the 22nd floor of a commercial building in Manhattan. He was a member of Local 94 Operating Engineers Union, which did maintenance work for the building. American International Realty (AIR), a subsidiary of American International Group (AIG), leased the building from its owner, the New York City Industrial Development Agency (NYCIDA). Plaintiff sued AIR, AIG, NYCIDA and the New York City Environmental Development Corporation for violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). On the date of the accident, plaintiff was performing a monthly maintenance check of the air conditioning units on the 22nd through 29th floors. This included taking amperage readings and checking belts, sheaves and bearings. When checking the 22nd floor unit, plaintiff discovered a low amperage reading and heavy vibrations. The motor appeared worn and loose, and the belts were “chewed up.” He left and returned with tools and parts needed to fix the machine. As he climbed a ladder and began to remove the unit’s cover a second time, the bottom of the ladder “kicked out” and he fell.
Supreme Court held that plaintiff could not sustain a claim under section 240 (1), because he was not engaged in any of the covered activities. The Appellate Division affirmed, as do we. Section 240 (1) applies where an employee is engaged “in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure.” Although repairing is among the enumerated activities, we have distinguished this from “routine maintenance” (Smith v Shell Oil Co., 85 NY2d 1000, 1002 [1995]). The work here involved replacing components that require replacement in the course of normal wear and tear. It therefore constituted routine maintenance and not “repairing” or any of the other enumerated activities.
As for Labor Law § 241 (6), we have held it inapplicable outside the construction, demolition or excavation contexts (see Nagel v D & R Realty Corp., 99 NY2d 98 [2002]). Therefore, the maintenance work involved in this case fell outside that section’s reach. We also agree that defendants satisfactorily established that plaintiff was a special employee of AIR.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read concur.
*529 On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.