Brice v. Lafayette Country Club, Inc.

Appeal from order insofar as it denied preclusion unanimously dismissed (see, Loafin’ Tree Rest. v Pardi [appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 985 ) and otherwise order reversed on the law without costs and motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred by denying defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claim pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) and by granting plaintiff’s cross motion to amend his bill of particulars to allege a violation of section 200 of the Labor Law. Plaintiff, a florist who had been hired by a member to decorate a room in defendant country club for a private party, was injured when he fell from a stepladder while hanging streamers from the ceiling. We conclude that the activity in which plaintiff was engaged, hanging streamers, is not a protected activity within the purview of the Labor Law (cf., Izrailev v Ficarra Furniture, 70 NY2d 813 , 815; Neville v Deters, 175 AD2d 597 ; Ferrari v Niasher Realty, 175 AD2d 591 ; Dedario v New York Tel. Co., 162 AD2d 1001 ). We cannot agree with plaintiff’s argument that hanging streamers for a party is the alteration of a building or structure sufficient to invoke the protection of the Labor Law (see generally, Mordkofsky v V.C. V. Dev. Corp., 76 NY2d 573 , 576-577).

Supreme Court correctly held that plaintiff’s counsel did not violate Code of Professional Responsibility DR 7-104 (A) (1) by informally interviewing a maintenance person employed by defendant (see, Niesig v Team I, 76 NY2d 363 , 374). Conse