When “Routine Maintenance” Isn’t So Routine: Understanding Labor Law §240(1) and Worker Protection in New York
New York’s Labor Law § 240(1), commonly known as the Scaffold Law, is one of the strongest worker-protection statutes in the country. It places strict liability on property owners and general contractors for gravity-related accidents, such as falls from heights or being struck by falling objects that occur during certain types of construction work.
Of note, the law does not apply to routine maintenance i.e., the kind of recurring, everyday work that keeps equipment or property in ordinary operating condition. Courts often look to The nature of the task, not just the worker’s job title, to decide whether the work qualifies for statutory protection.
The Gray Area Between Construction and Maintenance
Not every task involving ladders or scaffolds qualifies for protection under § 240(1). The law applies to workers engaged in erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning, or pointing of a building or structure.
The challenge comes when the task is labeled as “maintenance” rather than “repair” or “alteration.” Courts have drawn distinctions based on the nature and purpose of the work:
- Routine maintenance—such as changing light bulbs, replacing filters, or cleaning HVAC units as part of regular upkeep—usually does not trigger § 240(1).
- Repair or alteration, on the other hand, involves correcting a malfunction, replacing a broken component, or making a significant change to the structure, and is typically covered.
When Maintenance Becomes a Repair: Cases Where The Work is Covered By The Law’s Protection
- Przyborowski v. A&M Cook, LLC (App. Div. 2024)
A worker replacing a malfunctioning air conditioning compressor fell from a ladder. Because the work involved fixing a defective component essential to the system’s operation, the court found it constituted a repair, not routine maintenance — therefore covered under §240(1).
- Soriano v. St. Mary’s Indian Orthodox Church of Rockland, Inc., 118 A.D.3d 524 (1st Dep’t 2014)
A worker fell while replacing a broken light fixture, and the court ruled the work qualified as repair rather than maintenance, since the fixture was no longer functioning.
- Panek v. County of Albany, 99 N.Y.2d 452 (2003)
A mechanic injured while fixing a malfunctioning overhead door was performing repair work—and thus protected under the Scaffold Law—because the work was not recurring or routine.
Examples of Routine Maintenance That Is Not Covered By The Statute
- Esposito v. New York City Industrial Development Agency, 1 N.Y.3d 526 (2003)
The Court of Appeals held that a worker injured while replacing light bulbs in a building was not covered under §240(1). The task was considered routine maintenance—performed regularly and not involving any repair or alteration to the structure itself.
- Abbatiello v. Lancaster Studio Associates, 3 N.Y.3d 46 (2004)
A cable technician fell from a ladder while checking and replacing an outdoor light fixture. The court ruled the activity was routine maintenance, since the worker was performing regular upkeep, not repairing a malfunctioning or damaged component.
- Altona v. City of New York, 265 A.D.2d 543 (2d Dep’t 1999)
A worker injured while changing air filters on an HVAC system was not entitled to §240(1) protection. The court reasoned that replacing filters was part of the building’s regular maintenance schedule, not a repair or alteration.
- Chowdhury v. Rodriguez, 57 A.D.3d 121 (2d Dep’t 2008)
A building porter injured while cleaning light fixtures was found not to be covered under §240(1), as cleaning performed in a routine, maintenance capacity (not as part of a construction or alteration project) does not fall within the statute’s protections.
Why It Matters for Injured Workers
For an injured worker, the classification of the job can determine whether they’re entitled to full statutory protection or left with only a standard negligence claim. Under § 240(1), if the law applies, the owner or contractor is strictly liable — meaning the worker does not have to prove negligence, only that the statute was violated and that the violation caused the injury.
If your fall occurred while performing what your employer called “maintenance,” you may still have a case. An experienced construction accident attorney can analyze the specific facts to determine whether your work falls under the scope of the Scaffold Law.
Key Takeaway
Whether your job is considered “maintenance” or “repair” can determine the outcome of your Labor Law claim. Don’t assume you’re unprotected just because of a job title or description — the courts look at what you were actually doing at the time of the accident.
If you were injured in a fall at a New York construction or maintenance site, contact Grandelli & Eskenasi for a free consultation. We’ll review your case and fight to secure the protections you’re entitled to under the law.