Construction Accidents Involving Repairing and Altering

Todd Dahlia v. S & K Distribution, LLC, et al. (April 24, 2019) Felix Colon v. Third Avenue Open MRI, Inc., et al. (May 28, 2019) Robert Wass v. County of Nassau, et al. (June 12, 2019) Kevin McCarthy v. City of New York, et al. (June 26, 2019) In this installment of David’s Corner, we have four cases that discuss one of the most important topics for New York construction accident lawyers to consider when deciding whether there is a case under New York’s Labor Law: was the worker performing an activity that is enumerated in the statute? In order for the Scaffold Law, Labor Law 240(1), to apply, the worker must be employed on the site and engaged in “erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure.” Dahlia, Colon, and Wass all involved the question of whether the worker was engaged in repairing or routine maintenance, which is not covered by the law. Dahlia and Colon had their cases thrown out because the courts found they were engaged in routine maintenance. Dahlia was an HVAC service technician that was merely replacing a belt that was missing from heating unit, which usually needed replacing once a year, and didn’t involve any power tools. The courts have held that where all the work required is “replacing component parts that require replacement in the course of normal wear and tear,” that is routine maintenance and Labor Law 240(1) does not apply. Colon was a handyman who fell off a ladder when climbing it to fix a le