| Eisenstein v Board of Mgrs. of Oaks at La Tourette CondominiumSections I-IV |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06826 [43 AD3d 987] |
| September 18, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Samuel Eisenstein et al., Respondents, v Board ofManagers of the Oaks at La Tourette Condominium Sections I-IV,Appellant. |
—[*1] Edelman & Edelman, P.C., New York, N.Y. (David M. Schuller of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from somuch of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated September 12,2006, as granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to renew their opposition to that branch of itsprior motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging aviolation of Labor Law § 240 (1), which had been granted in a prior order of the samecourt dated January 31, 2006, and upon renewal, vacated so much of the order dated January 31,2006, as granted that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment and, in effect,denied that branch of the motion.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs' motion forleave to renew based upon a case decided by this Court on the same day that the Supreme Courtissued its order granting the defendant's original motion for summary judgment (see Fitzpatrick v State of New York, 25AD3d 755 [2006]). In Fitzpatrick, this Court clarified the law regarding theapplicability of Labor Law § 240 (1) to workers injured during the course of repairing orreplacing lighting fixtures at an elevated height, as contrasted with workers injured whileperforming the isolated task of changing light bulbs as part of routine lighting fixturemaintenance.[*2]
Here, upon renewal, the Supreme Court properlydetermined that, as in Fitzpatrick, the injured plaintiff was hurt as a result of a fall from aladder which occurred while repairing a lighting fixture. The general context of the injuredplaintiff's work encompassed activity protected under the statute, and thus, Labor Law §240 (1) applies (see Prats v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 100 NY2d 878, 882 [2003];Fitzpatrick v State of New York, supra at 757). Accordingly, upon renewal, the SupremeCourt properly vacated so much of its prior order as granted that branch of the defendant's motionwhich was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of LaborLaw § 240 (1) and properly, in effect, denied that branch of the motion.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Ritter, Dillon andCarni, JJ., concur.