The opinion of the court was delivered by: Edward H. Lehner, J.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the printed Official Reports.
On the various motions by defendants for summary judgment dismissing the action as against them, I am faced with determining a constantly recurring issue in cases under the Labor Law as to whether the work plaintiff was performing at the time of his injury was "routine maintenance" and thus not covered by § 240(1), or a "repair," which is one of the enumerated activities set forth in the section*fn1, as well as determining the question, that has been raised in several cases, as to whether a fall from a non-defective ladder caused by an electric shock can result in liability under said section.
Here, plaintiff's employer, fifth-party defendant Donnelly Mechanical Corp. ("Donnelly"), was called by defendant Apple Computer, Inc. ("Apple") on August 18, 2004 to attend to a malfunctioning air conditioning system in its leased premises (the "Premises") in the Citicorp Building on East 53rd Street. The premises had been renovated the prior year and defendant J.T. Magen and Co., Inc. ("Magen") had been the general contractor on the job.
Plaintiff testified that when he arrived at the Premises on August 18, he climbed up an A-frame ladder and pushed up the tile on the dropped ceiling, breaking a nipple that was on the condenser's water pipe. He then came down and ordered a part to replace the broken nipple. While waiting for the part, he investigated the condition of the air-conditioning system and determined that the reason it was not functioning was because of a defect in the water pump system. When the needed part arrived, he again ascended the ladder and claims that he fell eight to ten feet as a result of a shock received from touching a loose exposed wire in the ceiling. The ladder itself did not fall and the incident was unwitnessed. Plaintiff stated that after the accident he went back up the ladder and put a nut on the exposed wire.
The evidence indicates: that the contracted-for construction work at the Premises was complete months before the accident; that Magen was no longer functioning as a general contractor at the Premises on August 18, 2004; that Magen had not requested Donnelly to send personnel to the site on that day; and that Magen had no supervisory control over plaintiff and was unaware that he was at the Premises on that day. Hence, it cannot be held liable to plaintiff under § 240 (1). Any work that plaintiff was then performing was, in any event, outside the scope of the general contractor's contract. See, Butt v. Bovis Lend Lease LMB, 47 AD3d 338, 340 (1st Dept. 2007); Balthazar v. Full Circle Construction Corp., 268 AD2d 96, 98 (2nd Dept. 2000). Therefore, the claim against it under § 240 (1) is dismissed, as are the claims against it under § 200 and common-law negligence.
Also, since the accident did not occur in the course of "construction, demolition or excavation," it is not covered by § 241 (6) [Nagel v. D & R Realty Corp., 99 NY2d 98, 102 (2002); Esposito v. New York City Industrial Development Agency, 1 NY3d 526, 528 (2003); Maes v. 408 W. 39 LLC, 24 AD3d 298 (1st Dept. 2005)]. Hence, plaintiff's claim under said section is dismissed as against all defendants.
In light of such dismissals, there is no objection to the motions for the dismissal of the third, fourth and fifth party indemnity claims (tr. pp. 38, 48), which are therefore also dismissed. It is noted that there is no motion before the court with respect to sixth-party defendant (tr. p. 60).
In light of plaintiff's testimony that an exposed wire in the dropped ceiling caused him to fall, and evidence that defendant Pomalee Electric Co., Inc. ("Pomalee") performed work on that ceiling, its motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim based on common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 is denied. While Pomalee argues that the wire it installed was of low voltage and could not have caused the shock plaintiff allegedly sustained, I cannot determine that issue as a matter of law.
The remaining claim to be determined on these motions is whether Apple may be liable under § 240 (1) based on the assertion that the work plaintiff performed was a "repair" and thus covered by the section.
Work that involves "replacing components that require replacement in the course of normal wear and tear" constitutes "routine maintenance" and would not be a "repair" as that term is used in § 240 (1) [Esposito v. New York City Industrial Development Agency, supra, at p. 528]. To constitute a " 'repair' under Labor Law § 240 (1), there must be proof that the machine or object being worked upon was inoperative or not functioning properly" [Goad v. Southern Electric International, Inc., 263 AD2d 654 (3rd Dept. 1999)]. Where an "injured plaintiff was engaged in the repair of a nonfunctioning air conditioner ..., (he) was engaged in the type of 'repair' work which is specifically protected under Labor Law § 240 (1)" [Sprague v. Peckham Materials Corp., 240 AD2d 392, 393 (2nd Dept. 1997)].
Thus, the essence of the distinction is that if the only work is the replacement of a component caused by normal wear and tear, it is "routine maintenance," but if the object involved was inoperable or malfunctioning for other reasons, it is a "repair." See also, Smith v. Shell Oil Company, 85 NY2d 1000 (1995); Arevelo v. Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc., 28 AD3d 242 (1st Dept. 2006); Papapietro, 265 AD2d 174 (1st Dept. 1999); Jani v. City of New York, 284 AD2d 304 (2nd Dept. 2001); Leubner v. McNeil, 261 AD2d 777 (3rd Dept. 1999). Clearly, the work that needed to be performed here to remedy the problem with the air conditioner was a "repair" as the unit was purportedly malfunctioning.
Apple asserts that when it called Donnelly to have a worker come to the Premises, it was only requesting that Donnelly determine the reason for the nonfunctioning of the air conditioning unit. However, the question as to what tasks were to be performed at the Premises raises an issue of fact. See in general, Prats v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 100 NY2d 878, 882-883 (2003) ("whether a particular inspection falls within section 240 (1) must be determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on the context of the work"); Caraciolo v. 800 Second Avenue Condominium, 294 AD2d 200, 202 (1st Dept. 2002) ("Inspection of an integral part of the building in furtherance of repairing an apparent malfunction is ... clearly within the scope of the activities covered by section 240 (1) of the Labor Law); Short v. Durez Division-Hooker Chemicals & Plastic Corp.; 280 AD2d 972, 973 (4th Dept. 2001); Craft v. Clark Trading Corporation, 257 AD2d 886, 887 (3rd Dept. 1999) [a fall by the plaintiff "in furtherance of his investigation regarding the cause of an undisputed malfunction in the middle of the night" constituted an injury while performing a "repair" under § 240 (1)].
Finally, coming to the issue of whether the fall as a result of an electric shock can result in liability under § 240 (1), the First Department, in denying summary judgment in Webber v. 1111 Park Avenue Realty Corp., 253 AD2d 376 (1998), quoted the Second Department conclusion in Gange v. Tiles Investment Co., 220 AD2d 556 (1995), that "the fact that the plaintiff fell off the ladder only after he sustained an electric shock does not preclude recovery under Labor Law § 240 (1), ... (but) the plaintiff is not entitled to summary judgment ... as there are questions of fact as to whether, inter alia, the ladder, which was not shown to be defective in any way, failed to provide proper protection and whether plaintiff should have been provided with additional safety devices" (p. 378). Similar holdings that an issue of fact is raised when a worker falls off a non-defective ladder as a result of an electric shock were rendered in Karapati v. K. J. Rocchio, Inc., 12 AD3d 413 (2nd Dept. 2004); Donovan v. CNY Consolidated Contractors, Inc., 278 AD2d 881 (4th Dept. 2000); Grogan v. Norlite Corporation, 282 AD2d 781, 782-783 (3rd Dept. 2001) ("we note that under ...