Case ID: ny3d_3/html/0664-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Memorandum.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[817 NE2d 819, 784 NYS2d 2]
    Aleksey Chizh, Appellant, v Hillside Campus Meadows Associates, LLC, Respondent.
    Decided August 31, 2004
    
      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Lewis & Lewis, P.C., Buffalo (Emily L. Downing and Richard P. Amico of counsel), for appellant.
    
      Law Offices of John Quackenbush, Buffalo (John Wallace of counsel), for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Unlike the situation in Prats v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. (100 NY2d 878 [2003]), here plaintiff was replacing a torn window screen at the time of his injury, an activity that constituted “routine maintenance” rather than “repair” or “alteration” of a building or structure (see Esposito v New York City Indus. Dev. Agency, 1 NY3d 526 [2003]; see also Abbatiello v Lancaster Studio Assoc., 3 NY3d 46, 53 [2004]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.