Summary
In Swiderska v New York Univ. (10 NY3d 792 [2008]), another window washing case, we applied the analysis in Broggy to determine that a plaintiff injured when she fell off a bed that she had climbed on to clean the interior windows of a dormitory as part of a commercial cleaning project was engaged in an activity covered by Labor Law § 240(1).
Summary of this case from Soto v. J. Crew Inc.Opinion
No. 107 SSM 5.
Decided March 20, 2008.
APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered November 8, 2006. The Appellate Division affirmed an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Laura Jacobson, J.), which had granted defendants' respective cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on that cause of action.
Swiderska v New York Univ., 34 AD3d 445, reversed.
Profeta Eisenstein, New York City ( Fred R. Profeta, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.
Wade Clark Mulcahy, New York City ( Dennis M. Wade of counsel), for respondents.
Before: Chief Judge KAYE and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES concur in memorandum.
OPINION OF THE COURT
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment as to liability on her Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action should be granted and defendants' cross motions for summary judgment should be denied.
As part of a commercial cleaning contract, plaintiff's employer instructed her to clean the 10-foot-high interior windows in a dormitory building, providing her with only a rag and window washing solution to complete the task. When plaintiff asked for a ladder so that she could reach the tops of the windows, she was instructed to climb on furniture instead. While standing on a bed in an attempt to clean a window, plaintiff fell to the floor, suffering multiple fractures and other injuries. This Labor Law § 240 (1) action ensued.
The parties cross-moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, with both lower courts granting judgment in favor of defendants on the theory that the activity in which plaintiff was engaged constituted routine maintenance not covered by Labor Law § 240 (1). We disagree and conclude that plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability. In Broggy v Rockefeller Group, Inc. ( 8 NY3d 675), we held that commercial window cleaning comparable to the activity at issue here is encompassed within Labor Law § 240 (1) if it created the type of elevation-related risk that the statute was intended to address. In this case, plaintiff established that she was injured while cleaning 10-foot-high windows in a college dormitory with a rag, which required her to climb upon pieces of furniture in order to complete her work — creating an elevation-related risk — and she was not provided a ladder, scaffold or other safety device of the kind contemplated under the statute.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.