Smith v. Shell Oil Company

Full title: THOMAS R. SMITH, Appellant, v. SHELL OIL COMPANY et al., Defendants and…

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 20, 1994

205 A.D.2d 681 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

613 N.Y.S.2d 642

Opinion

June 20, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Since the changing of lightbulbs, by itself, is not "repairing", as that term is used in Labor Law § 240 (1) (see, Manente v. Ropost, Inc., 136 A.D.2d 681; cf., Izrailev v. Ficarra Furniture, 70 N.Y.2d 813), the Supreme Court properly granted the motions of the defendants and the third-party defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

In light of the foregoing determination, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions. O'Brien, J.P., Pizzuto, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.