Opinion ID: 2228865
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Nature of the Work

Text: We also agree with the Appellate Division that plaintiff, at the time of his accident, was involved in the routine maintenance of a malfunctioning cable box and [the work] did not constitute `erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building' so as to fall within the protective ambit of Labor Law § 240 (1) (307 AD2d 788, 789 [2003] [citations omitted]). Plaintiff here was engaged in an activity similar to that of plaintiff in Esposito v New York City Indus. Dev. Agency (1 N.Y.3d 526 [2003]), who was performing a monthly maintenance check on air conditioners located high off the ground. One unit appeared in need of repair, and plaintiff left and returned with tools and parts. As he climbed the ladder and began to remove the unit cover, the bottom of his ladder kicked out and he fell. We held that [t]he work . . . involved replacing components that require replacement in the course of normal wear and tear. It therefore constituted routine maintenance and not `repairing' or any of the other enumerated activities ( Esposito, 1 N.Y.3d at 528). Likewise here, plaintiff determined that the cause of the defective signal was water in the tap, a common problem caused by rainwater accumulating in junction boxes affixed to building exteriors. The remedy would have been to loosen a few screws and drain the water from the tap and, if worn out, replace the tap. These activities constitute routine maintenance and not repair as contemplated by Labor Law § 240 (1). Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. Order affirmed, with costs.