From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Binetti v. MK West Street Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 15, 1997
239 A.D.2d 214 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

May 15, 1997

Appeal from Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.).


Plaintiff, a journeyman electrician, was employed by third-party defendant Coyne, an electrical subcontractor. Coyne was hired to do the electrical work on a 30-story construction project by MK West Street Company and Marson Construction Corp., the owner and general contractor, respectively. Coyne's responsibilities on the project included providing a system of temporary lighting to assist the workers on the construction site. While performing this function, plaintiff placed a ladder in a darkened room next to a bucket, which he did not see. Plaintiff climbed the ladder and placed a light bulb in the empty fixture, and while descending between the second and first rungs, his foot hit the 14-inch high bucket, causing him to fall and injure himself.

Plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action should not have been dismissed since his actions herein fell within the statute's enumerated activities. Plaintiff was not merely changing a lightbulb in conjunction with ordinary maintenance activities ( cf., Smith v. Shell Oil Co., 85 N.Y.2d 1000, 1002). Rather, plaintiff's duties concerning the lighting were clearly related to, and an integral part of, the construction work being accomplished by the workers at the site ( see, Clemente v. Grow Tunneling Corp., 235 A.D.2d 331; Covey v. Iroquois Gas Transmission Sys., 218 A.D.2d 197, 198-200, affd 89 N.Y.2d 952; see generally, Lombardi v. Stout, 80 N.Y.2d 290, 296; cf., Bermel v Board of Educ., 231 A.D.2d 663; Santagate v. Town of Yorktown, 226 A.D.2d 519).

Nor does the fact that plaintiff fell only a short distance remove this incident from the purview of the statute, since falling from the bottom rung of a ladder at a construction site is the type of elevation-related risk the statute was intended to cover ( see, Norton v. Bell Sons, 237 A.D.2d 928, 929; Guillory v Nautilus Real Estate, 208 A.D.2d 336, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 881; see also, Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 509).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Wallach, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

Binetti v. MK West Street Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 15, 1997
239 A.D.2d 214 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Binetti v. MK West Street Co.

Case Details

Full title:FRANK BINETTI, Appellant, v. MK WEST STREET COMPANY et al., Respondents…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 15, 1997

Citations

239 A.D.2d 214 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
657 N.Y.S.2d 648

Citing Cases

Dilluvio v. City of New York

Contrary to the matter at bar, it appears that the workers in each of these cases were exposed to a…

Adair v. Bestek Lighting Staging Corp.

The Court of Appeals, in holding that "the task in which an injured employee was engaged must have been…