Peterkin v. Westchester Parks Found., Inc.

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the denial of the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. The court held that the plaintiff's tree-cutting and removal work constituted routine maintenance outside a construction or renovation context and was not covered by Labor Law § 240(1), while affirming the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion.

Holdings

1. Tree cutting and removal, standing alone, are not activities covered by Labor Law § 240(1), and routine tree maintenance outside a construction or renovation context is not subject to the statute.
2. The defendant was entitled to summary judgment because it established that the plaintiff was engaged in routine tree cutting and removal, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact connecting the work to a construction project.
3. The plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the plaintiff's tree-cutting and removal work was activity protected by Labor Law § 240(1) because it was part of or integral to a construction project associated with the holiday light show.
2. Whether the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) claim.
3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240(1).

Disposition

reversed