New York Court of Appeals, 2004

Beehner v. Eckerd Corporation

New York Court of Appeals · Decided November 30, 2004 · Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith Concur

821 N.E.2d 941; 3 N.Y.3d 751; 788 N.Y.S.2d 637; 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 3714 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision.

Lijo v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Harnisch v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
Doskotch v. Pisocki (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Davis v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Simon v. Granite Building 2, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Simon v. Granite Building 2, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Feinberg v. Sanz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Feinberg v. Sanz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Gdanski v. 5822 Broadway Associates, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Gdanski v. 5822 Broadway Associates, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Bolster v. Eastern Building & Restoration, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Bolster v. Eastern Building & Restoration, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Weisman v. Duane Reade, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
Ferenczi v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Rivera v. Santos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Martinez v. Hitachi Construction Machinery Co. (New York Supreme Court 2006)
Nelson v. Sweet Associates, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Joy v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Barbarito v. County of Tompkins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)

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 judgment appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be affirmed, with costs.

The Appellate Division correctly determined that plaintiffs work on the air conditioning unit inside defendant’s store constituted “repair” work under Labor Law § 240 (1). The repair work, however, had ended before plaintiffs injury. The activity plaintiff was engaged in at the time of his injury—retrieval of serial and model numbers from the unit and postrepair inspection—was not repair work. In Martinez v City of New York (93 NY2d 322 [1999]), we held that an injury that occurred during inspection and before an enumerated activity began was not within the purview of section 240 (1). Similarly, the statute does not cover an injury occurring after an enumerated activity is complete. In Prats v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. (100 NY2d 878 [2003]), the Court allowed a section 240 (1) claim when alteration work was on-going. We will not “isolate the moment of injury” (id. at 882), but here as in Martinez, there is a bright line separating the enumerated and nonenumerated work.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Grapfeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.