Court Sheds Further Light On What Is Not A “Structure” or “Repair” Within The Meaning of Labor Law 240

The Appellate Term for the 2nd, 11th and 13th Judicial Districts recently affirmed the dismissal of an injured worker’s Labor Law 240, 200 and common-law negligence claims in a decision that sheds more light as to what courts are not willing to consider “structures” and “repairs” within the meaning of Labor Law 240. Specifically, the Court held that replacing a motor in a six foot oven is routine maintenance since the motor was worn out due to wear and tear. Additionally, the Court held that the motor was not a “structure” within the meaning of Labor Law 240 as it “was not part of the building and did not affect the structural integrity of the building.” Romero v City of New York, 2015 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 502, 2015 NY Slip Op 50197(U) (N.Y. App. Term Feb. 23, 2015)