AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

CHARLES RAMMELKAMP, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. S.L. BUILDING CO., et al., Defendants-Respondents.

We affirm the dismissal of the complaint upon the ground that the work performed by plaintiff at the time of his accident was merely a routine repair of a telephone line and did not constitute "the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building" within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) or "constructing or demolishing buildings" within the meaning ofLabor Law § 241(6) so as to bring plaintiff within the protective ambit of those statutes (see, Joblon v. Solow, 91 N.Y.2d 457;Cosentino v. Long Island R.R., 201 A.D.2d 528).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

RAMMELKAMP v. S.L. BUILDING CO
(Mar 2, 2000)