Saint
v.
Syracuse Supply Co.

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.Oct 4, 2013
973 N.Y.S.2d 896 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
973 N.Y.S.2d 896110 A.D.3d 14702013 N.Y. Slip Op. 6472

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • Saint v. Syracuse Supply Co.

    …Plaintiffs also asserted claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, but during the course of the…

  • Saint v. Syracuse Supply Co.

    …2014-04-8Joseph SAINT, et al., Appellants, v. SYRACUSE SUPPLY COMPANY, Respondent.Reported below, 110 A.D.3d…

lock 4 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

Analyses written by attorneys

Analyses

1 Analysiskeyboard_arrow_right

2013-10-4

Joseph SAINT and Sheila Saint, Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. SYRACUSE SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendant–Appellant.

Gibson, McAskill & Crosby, LLP, Buffalo (Brian P. Crosby of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Paul William Beltz, P.C., Buffalo (Timothy M. Hudson of Counsel), for Plaintiffs–Respondents.



Gibson, McAskill & Crosby, LLP, Buffalo (Brian P. Crosby of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Paul William Beltz, P.C., Buffalo (Timothy M. Hudson of Counsel), for Plaintiffs–Respondents.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI AND LINDLEY, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:


Plaintiffs commenced this Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained by Joseph Saint (plaintiff) when he fell from an elevated billboard structure during the course of changing the advertisement thereon. We note at the outset that plaintiffs conceded that they had no viable claim under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence, and thus the only remaining Labor Law claims are under sections 240 and 241(6).

Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint. We agree with defendant that applying a new advertisement to the face of a billboard does not constitute the “altering” of a building or structure for purposes of section 240 ( see Joblon v. Solow, 91 N.Y.2d 457, 465, 672 N.Y.S.2d 286, 695 N.E.2d 237;see also Bodtman v. Living Manor Love, Inc., 105 A.D.3d 434, 434, 963 N.Y.S.2d 35;Zolfaghari v. Hughes Network Sys., LLC, 99 A.D.3d 1234, 1235, 952 N.Y.S.2d 367,lv. denied20 N.Y.3d 861, 961 N.Y.S.2d 835, 985 N.E.2d 431). Rather, that activity is “more akin to cosmetic maintenance or decorative modification,” and is thus not an activity protected under section 240( Munoz v. DJZ Realty, LLC, 5 N.Y.3d 747, 748, 800 N.Y.S.2d 866, 834 N.E.2d 776). We further agree with defendant that, because plaintiff was not engaged in construction work, section 241(6) does not apply to this case ( see Hatfield v. Bridgedale, LLC, 28 A.D.3d 608, 610, 814 N.Y.S.2d 659).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the amended complaint is dismissed.