top of page
  • Susan A. Romano, Esq.

Balija v. 450 Kent Ave, et. al., Supreme Court, Kings County - Summary Judgment

Updated: Jul 22


The Court granted defendant owner’s motion dismissing Labor Law sections 200, 241 and 241(6), and denying plaintiff’s motion seeking summary judgment on the Labor Law causes of action, dismissing the action in its entirety. Judge Genine D. Edwards in a 36 page decision, upheld the intent of the Labor Law and found that plaintiff’s act of replacing a ceiling tile constituted routine maintenance and was not entitled to the extraordinary protections of the Labor Law. Plaintiff, a building superintendent, was replacing a ceiling tile when he allegedly fell from a ladder. All parties moved for summary judgment on the Labor Law claims. The Court, correctly held that in the absence of construction, renovation or excavation activities, section 240 and 241(6), do not apply. Nevertheless, the Court continued, even if construction activities were ongoing at the time of the accident, plaintiff’s task in replacing a wet ceiling tile constituted routine maintenance, which is not a protected activity under the Labor Law. Finally, the Court dismissed the Labor Law section 200 and common law negligence claims holding that there was no evidence of a dangerous condition, that no party supervised or controlled the plaintiff’s work at the time of the incident, and no party owned or maintained the ladder.

For more information on the facts of this matter, contact Susan A. Romano, Esq.


Recent Posts

See All

This case arose following a trial in the Supreme Court, Kings County, whereby the jury rendered a verdict finding in favor of the defendants on the issue of Labor Law §240 (1). The plaintiff then move

bottom of page