Opinion
April 9, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.).
While cleaning windows of apartments within a newly constructed condominium complex in order to prepare the apartments to be shown for sale, plaintiff fell three stories when, unable to reach the entire outside of one of the windows while standing inside the apartment, he climbed onto a window sill to complete his task and lost his footing. Plaintiff had not been provided with a belt, window anchors or any other safety device. Under similar circumstances, we have held that Labor Law § 202 does not preclude a window washer's cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1) (Terry v. Young Men's Hebrew Assn., 168 A.D.2d 399, affd on other grounds 78 N.Y.2d 978), and we adhere to that precedent. We also reject the contention that the work plaintiff was performing, commissioned by a commercial entity for the commercial enhancement of the premises, constituted only "routine", "household", or "truly domestic" cleaning to which section 240 (1) does not apply (compare, Brown v. Christopher St. Owners Corp., 87 N.Y.2d 938, with Vernum v. Zilka, 241 A.D.2d 885).
Concur — Lerner, P.J., Milonas, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.