| Owens v City of New York |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03091 [72 AD3d 775] |
| April 13, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| William A. Owens, Appellant, v City of New York et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Pamela Seider Dolgow,Andrew John Potak, and Fay Ng of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by hisbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.), entered June30, 2009, as denied that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment on the issue ofliability on his cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and granted thatbranch of the defendants' cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause ofaction alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff William A. Owens, a maintenance worker for the New York City schoolsystem, allegedly was injured when he fell from a ladder while he was performing work on adoor's "slide bolt" locking mechanism. He subsequently commenced this action against thedefendants City of New York and the New York City Department of Education.
The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law bydemonstrating that the plaintiff was not engaged in an activity protected under Labor Law§ 240 (1), but was instead performing routine maintenance when he fell (see Thompson v 1701 Corp., 51 AD3d904 [2008]; Azad v 270 5th RealtyCorp., 46 AD3d 728 [2007]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue offact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion whichwas for summary judgment on the issue of liability on his cause of action alleging a violation ofLabor Law § 240 (1), and granted that branch of the defendants' cross motion which wasfor summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law §240 (1).
The parties' remaining contentions have been rendered academic in light of ourdetermination. Covello, J.P., Florio, Miller and Eng, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 24Misc 3d 1204(A), 2009 NY Slip Op 51247(U).]