Opinion
December 8, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.).
We agree with the motion court that plaintiff's work changing elevator contacts and cables, putting new chips in computer boards and painting and cleaning the elevator motor room was mere routine maintenance activity and, as such, not akin to the significant structural work involved in Joblon v. Solow ( 91 N.Y.2d 457), and, accordingly, did not function to bring plaintiff within the protective ambit of Labor Law § 241 Lab. (6). However, upon our review of the record, we find that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether defendant had constructive notice of the slippery foreign substance alleged to have caused plaintiff's fall, and the existence of that factual issue precludes summary disposition of plaintiff's Labor Law § 200 Lab. cause of action ( cf., McCormack v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 233 A.D.2d 203).
Concur — Lerner, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Rubin and Williams, JJ.