| DeKenipp v Rockefeller Ctr., Inc. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02253 [60 AD3d 550] |
| March 24, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Thomas DeKenipp, Respondent, v Rockefeller Center,Inc., et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Oshman & Mirisola, LLP, New York (David L. Kremen of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris Ling-Cohan, J.), entered October 16, 2008,which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiff's motion for renewal and reargument of anorder dated November 14, 2007 granting defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissingplaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and, upon reargument, vacated said dismissal andgranted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim,unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff, a window washer employed by a private contractor that defendants hired, wasinstructed by his supervisor to clean the interior windows of defendants' building. Plaintiff hadpreviously cleaned these windows, and requested that his supervisor provide a pole extensionthat allowed him to reach their upper portions. This request was denied and thus, plaintiff had tostand atop three-to-four-foot-high, wall-mounted, heating convector covers to reach thewindows' upper areas. While plaintiff worked on one window, the convector cover he stood onsuddenly came loose from the wall and he fell, injuring himself.
We find that the window-washing task here involved an elevation-related risk of the typecontemplated by the safety devices listed in Labor Law § 240 (1) (see e.g. Swiderska v New York Univ.,10 NY3d 792, 792-793 [2008]). Plaintiff was effectively instructed to stand on theconvector covers to get the job done, a practice established by record evidence as being routinelyused by workers to access the building's windows and ceilings. Concur—Saxe, J.P.,Friedman, Sweeny, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.