Cruz v. Bridge Harbor Heights Associates

1 Citing case

  1. Mason v. Herbert Arnold Duke II Revocable Trust

    55 N.Y.S.3d 692 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2017)

    Ms. Mason must also show that she was obliged to work in an elevated manner—as opposed to standing on the floor and using extension devices—to wash the doors/windows (see, Nicometi v. The Vineyards of Fredonia, LLC, 25 NY3d 90, 97 ; Ortiz v. Varsity Holdings, LLC, 18 NY3d 335 ; Salazar v. Novalex Contracting Co., 18 NY3d 134, 139 ; Swiderska v. New York University, 10 NY3d 792 ; Broggy v. Rockefeller Group, Inc., 8 NY3d 675, 681 ).Questions of fact abound regarding whether the work activity was encompassed by the statute and whether the statute was violated. If Ms. Mason's testimony is credited regarding the scope and purpose her expected duties—the cleaning of tall doors/windows at a commercial building for a commercial purpose—then it would appear she was engaged in commercial window cleaning rather than routine, domestic window washing (see, Cruz v. Bridge Harbor Heights Associates, 249 A.D.2d 44 ; Domasszowec v. Residential Management Group, 135 AD3d 572 ). The court, however, cannot discard Flowers' testimony in this regard, namely, that Ms. Mason was neither expected nor tasked with cleaning the doors/windows in question.