From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Beehner v. Eckerd Corporation

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 30, 2004
3 N.Y.3d 751 (N.Y. 2004)

Opinion

Decided November 30, 2004.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Charles T. Major, J.), entered August 3, 2004. The Supreme Court dismissed all of plaintiff's causes of action against defendant. The appeal brings up for review a prior nonfinal order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, entered July 3, 2003. The Appellate Division, with two Justices dissenting, affirmed an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Charles T. Major, J.), which, among other things, had granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim.

Beehner v. Eckerd Corp., 307 AD2d 699, affirmed.

Alexander Catalano, LLP, Syracuse ( Benjamin C. Rabin of counsel), for appellants.

Smith, Sovik, Kendrick Sugnet, P.C., Syracuse ( Gabrielle Mardany Hope of counsel), for respondent.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges G.B. SMITH, CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO, READ and R.S. SMITH concur.


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 plaintiff's 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 plaintiff's 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), 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), 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.

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.


Summaries of

Beehner v. Eckerd Corporation

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 30, 2004
3 N.Y.3d 751 (N.Y. 2004)
Case details for

Beehner v. Eckerd Corporation

Case Details

Full title:JAMES R. BEEHNER et al., Appellants, v. ECKERD CORPORATION, Respondent

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 30, 2004

Citations

3 N.Y.3d 751 (N.Y. 2004)
788 N.Y.S.2d 637
821 N.E.2d 941

Citing Cases

Hoyos v. NY-1095 Ave. of the Ams., LLC

Supreme Court did not err in finding that plaintiff was covered under Labor Law § 240(1) and granting…

Hoyos v. NY-1095 Ave. of the Americas, LLC

Supreme Court did not err in finding that plaintiff was covered under Labor Law § 240(1) and granting…