Brown v. Christopher Street Owners Corp., 663 N.E.2d 1251 (N.Y. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Brown v. Christopher Street Owners Corp., 663 N.E.2d 1251 (N.Y. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
72 citation events (31 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Sahmanovic v. Kingsbridge Realty Assoc., LLC, 197 A.D.3d 1077 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2021)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
87 N.Y.2d at 939 Inconsistency of section 202 claim with liability theory11 citing cases10 listed here
  • Sahmanovic v. Kingsbridge Realty Assoc., LLC, 197 A.D.3d 1077 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2021).published
    Owners Corp. , 87 NY2d 938, 939 [1996]).
  • Joseph Saint v. Syracuse Supply Co., No. 35 (N.Y. Apr. 7, 2015).published
    Owners Corp. ( 87 NY2d 938, 939 [1996]), or the routine, annual inspection of an elevator in Nagel v D & R Realty Corp. ( 99 NY2d 98, 99 [2002]).
  • Joseph Saint v. Syracuse Supply Co., 30 N.E.3d 872 (N.Y. 2015).published
    Owners Corp. ( 87 NY2d 938, 939 [1996]), or the routine, annual inspection of an elevator in Nagel v D & R Realty Corp. ( 99 NY2d 98, 99 [2002]).
  • Bish v. Odell Farms P'ship, 119 A.D.3d 1337 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2014).published 2 cites
    Owners Corp., 87 NY2d 938, 939 [1996], rearg denied 88 NY2d 875 [1996]; see Wittmeyer v Holland Cent.
  • Soto v. J. Crew Inc., 998 N.E.2d 1045 (N.Y. 2013).published
    Owners Corp., 87 NY2d 938, 939 [1996]; Connors v Boorstein, 4 NY2d 172 [1958]).
  • Nutley v. Skydive the Ranch, 65 A.D.3d 443 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2009).published
    Owners Corp., 87 NY2d 938, 939 [1996]; Bacchiocchi v Ranch Parachute Club, 273 AD2d 173, 176 [2000]).
  • Wicks v. Trigen-Syracuse Energy Corp., 64 A.D.3d 75 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2009).published
    Owners Corp., 87 NY2d 938, 939 [1996], rearg denied 88 NY2d 875 [1996]).
  • Broggy v. Rockefeller Grp., Inc., 870 N.E.2d 1144 (N.Y. 2007).published
    Owners Corp. ( 87 NY2d 938, 939 [1996]), we did not preclude liability on the ground that the exterior window cleaning was not part of a construction, demolition, or repair project.
  • Brown v. Christopher Street Owners Corp., 2 A.D.3d 172 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2003).published 2 cites
    On a previous appeal from the disposition of opposing summary judgment motions, this Court modified an order dismissing plaintiffs cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) as against defendant cooperative and its managing agent to d…
  • Vernum v. Zilka, 241 A.D.2d 885 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 1997).published
    Owners Corp., supra, at 939).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Arthur Brown, Appellant,
v.
Christopher Street Owners Corp. Et Al., Respondents
New York Court of Appeals.
Feb 13, 1996.
Published opinion
663 N.E.2d 1251
1996 N.Y. LEXIS 63
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Norman Leonard Cousins, New York City, for appellant., Anthony J. DeMarco, Jr., Brooklyn, and Sean J. Geoghan for Christopher Street Owners Corp., respondent., Curtis, Zaklukiewicz, Vasile, Devine & McElhenny, Merrick (Stephen J. Molinelli of counsel), for Courtfield Properties Management, Inc., respondent., Quirk & Bakalor, P. C, New York City (Thomas E. Tookey of counsel), for Anne Hack, respondent.
Kaye and Judges Simons, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick Concur Judge Titone Taking No Part.
Cited by 61 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff Arthur Brown was injured when he fell from the second-floor ledge of a cooperative apartment building in lower Manhattan. Defendant Anne Hack had hired plaintiff to wash the windows of her one-bedroom apartment and, at the time of his fall, plaintiff was attempting to wash the exterior of one of the windows.

Although Labor Law § 240 (1), the first section of Labor Law article 10 ("Building Construction, Demolition and Repair Work”), provides for absolute liability against any contractor or owner who fails to furnish an employee with the appropriate scaffolding, ladders, slings or other safety devices during the "erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, [or] cleaning” of a building, the "cleaning” encompassed under the statute does not include the routine, household window washing at issue here (Connors v Boorstein, 4 NY2d 172, 175). Unlike the painting of a house (Rivers v Sauter, 26 NY2d 260) or the cleaning of all the windows of a large, nonresidential structure such as a school (Koenig v Patrick Constr. Corp., 298 NY 313), the routine cleaning of the five windows of a single cooperative apartment by an individual engaged by the apartment owner is not the kind of undertaking for which the Legislature sought to impose liability under Labor Law § 240.

In light of the parties’ failure to address Labor Law § 202 ("Protection of the public and of persons engaged at window cleaning and cleaning of exterior surfaces of buildings”) in their briefs, we do not reach the question whether it provides the exclusive Labor Law remedy in cases such as this involving window cleaning (see, Terry v Young Men’s Hebrew Assn., 78 NY2d 978, 979).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur; Judge Titone taking no part.

[*940] Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.