Justice Doris Ling-Cohan
Worker Declercq sued to recover damages for injuries he sustained when he fell from a ladder while working at Worldwide Plaza. He moved for partial summary judgment as to liability on his Labor Law §240(1) claim. Building owner WWP Office cross-moved to dismiss the complaint. While defendant conceded that commercial window washing was an activity covered by §240(1), it argued Declercq was not window washing or performing commercial cleaning, but merely hosing down soap on interior walls. The court disagreed finding WWP’s argument inapposite, noting Declercq’s washing of the window ledges and walls was akin to window washing at an elevated height, thus encompassed within §240(1). It also noted “it is neither pragmatic nor consistent with the spirit of the statute to isolate the moment of injury and ignore the general context of the work,” ruling the statute’s intent was to protect workers employed in the enumerated acts. As Declercq was not engaged in routine household or domestic cleaning, his activity was protected under §240(1), and WWP’s cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing Declercq’s complaint was denied, while plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment was granted.
