The New York Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Broggy v. Rockefeller Grp., Inc. is significant for two reasons (see prior post about case).   First, the Court clarified the activity "cleaning" set forth in Labor Law sec. 240(1).  As those who practice in this field know, practitioners have been contorting case law to argue what constitutes "cleaning" and what activities do not.  The Court clarifies the issue, noting that "cleaning" is not confined to cleaning in a construction context and "cleaning" does not need to be incidental to another enumerated activity.

Second, the Court reaffirms that not every fall from a height places an injured plaintiff within the protection of Labor Law sec. 240(1).  Here, the injured plaintiff was washing the interiors of a building’s windows and fell off a desk upon which he was standing while cleaning the windows.  The Court reasoned that the Record did not indicate that he was obliged to be at an elevation to perform his job.

The Court spent most of the decision describing the case’s facts, so I recommend reading it to see how the Court arrives at its reasoning.  The Court stated: "[S]ummary judgment in favor of defendants is proper because the evidence
in this record demonstrates as a matter of law that plaintiff did not
here need protection from the effects of gravity."