top of page


How Plaintiff Couched Testimony Determined Applicability of the Labor Law

February 3, 2009

Share to:

In <i>Pakenham v. Westmere Realty, LLC,</i> the plaintiff, a service technician, responded to a call of "no heat" at the defendants' office. The plaintiff used a ladder to access the heating unit on top of the building. While descending, the ladder he slipped and fell to the pavement. The plaintiff sued alleging violations of Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6) . The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that the Labor Law did not apply. The court split its decision and held that plaintiff's “repairs” implicated the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, but conversely held that the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action had to be dismissed as it was “inapplicable outside the construction, demolition or excavation contexts”.
Thanks to Cheryl Fuchs for her contribution to the post.
<a href=""></a>


bottom of page