Dahar v. Holland Ladder & Manufacturing Co.

18 N.Y.3d 521, 964 N.E.2d 402, 941 N.Y.S.2d 31 (N.Y. 2012) · Court of Appeals of New York · February 21, 2012 · No. No. 23

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals held that a factory employee injured while cleaning a manufactured steel wall module was not engaged in an activity protected by Labor Law § 240 (1). The court declined to extend the statute's protections to cleaning a product during a manufacturing process and affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff's claim.

Holdings

  1. A factory employee cleaning a manufactured product in the course of a manufacturing process is not engaged in an activity protected by Labor Law § 240(1).
  2. The court did not reach whether Bechtel and the Martins were contractors or owners because Dahar's activity was outside the statute's protected scope.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether cleaning a manufactured steel wall module during a manufacturing process constitutes protected activity under Labor Law § 240(1).
  2. Whether the defendants could be liable as contractors or owners under Labor Law § 240(1) based on the accident.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (16)

  • Dahar v. Holland Ladder & Mfg. Co., 79 A.D.3d 1631 (4th Dep't 2010)(followed as procedural history)
  • Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 N.Y.3d 280 (2003)(relied on)
  • Haimes v. New York Tel. Co., 46 N.Y.2d 132 (1978)(relied on)
  • Bland v. Manocherian, 66 N.Y.2d 452 (1985)(relied on)
  • Joblon v. Solow, 91 N.Y.2d 457 (1998)(relied on)
  • Munoz v. DJZ Realty, LLC, 5 N.Y.3d 747 (2005)(relied on)
  • Caddy v. Interborough R.T. Co., 195 N.Y. 415 (1909)(discussed)
  • Lewis-Moors v. Contel of N.Y., 78 N.Y.2d 942 (1991)(discussed)
  • Broggy v. Rockefeller Group, Inc., 8 N.Y.3d 675 (2007)(relied on)
  • Ferluckaj v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 12 N.Y.3d 316 (2009)(discussed)

Showing top 10 of 16.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…