Dangerous Signs For Window Cleaner

Entrepreneur Luke Rayner teams up with lawyer ‘Mr Loophole’ for road sign washing business.

Entrepreneur teams up with lawyer ‘Mr Loophole’ for road sign washing business: Luke Rayner, from Bournemouth, who has set up Clean Road Signs, said he was amazed that many signs go uncleaned, leaving some unreadable. He has enlisted the support of celebrity lawyer Nick Freeman, who says unreadable signs can lead to speeding tickets being quashed.

Mr Rayner, who also owns Harvard Window Cleaning, based in Sandbanks, said that while councils tended to keep signs free of bushes and trees, they rarely cleaned them. He said: “It struck me that no one was cleaning these signs and yet it is important that they are easily readable. “It is in the interests of local authorities and the police to keep them clean – and that is why I launched Clean Road Signs.

“We have already had lots of interest and I am in advanced stages of negotiation with one council. “We want to work across the country. “The difference between a dirty and a clean sign is staggering.”

Nick Freeman (pictured) runs Freeman & Co and is Britain’s most famous legal figure for defending motorists in court, having successfully defended Sir Alex Ferguson, Jamie Redknapp, Jeremy Clarkson and Andrew Flintoff. He said: “An obscured road sign can be a great defence when charged with speeding. “Motorists should be aware when a road has a 30mph limit because it will have street lights. “But with higher speeds the signs are the only way a motorist knows what the limit is.

“Signs must be unobscured and maintained in good order. “If one is filthy and can’t be read there isn’t a clear indication as required by law. Potentially it is a serious problem for the Crown Prosecution Service. “If someone says the sign was too dirty to read then it is the prosecution that has to prove otherwise.” He added: “In my view safety needs to be prioritised. “Many councils are now switching street lights off overnight in order to save money, and that is likely to increase the number of accidents.”

One Hundred Thousand Spent... And Still - Dirty Windows

What's that? Yes, we did say window-washing. Over one hundred thousand dollars spent in legal fees, all over window washing.

Tripping on Stipulations: A Condo Board Tries to Game the Bylaws ... and Fails: Don't count your bylaw amendments before they're hatched, and watch out when attorneys suggest an end-run around homeowners trying to stick to their rights. So go, at least, the lessons in a recent case involving an Upper East Side condominium board — which lost a lawsuit against a unit-owner over the crucial, critical, monumental issue of window-washing, then won a malpractice case against its own attorneys.

What's that? Yes, we did say window-washing. Over one hundred thousand dollars spent in legal fees, all over window washing.

In 2005, the condo board of Bridge Tower Place Condominium — a 38-story luxury high-rise at 401 East 60th Street, designed by Costas Kondylis and completed in 2000 — sought access to the wraparound terrace of the building's sole penthouse. The board said it wanted to install a scaffold to perform inspection and make repairs, and apartment-owner Robert J. Luzzi  — then the executive vice president and chief marketing/creative director with the fashion retailer New York & Company and now chief marketing officer of Ann Taylor Stores — said OK.

At about the same time, however, unit-owners were lobbying the board to undertake a building-wide window-washing project. The board determined that the easiest and most economical way to do this was to use the scaffolding already installed on Luzzi's terrace.

Gotta Know When to Scaffold 'Em - Not so fast, said Luzzi — and with the board evidently standing fast, he filed a lawsuit against the condominium in June 2006 seeking to permanently forbid the board from using his terrace as a scaffolding hang for washing the building's windows. He also sought a declaration that he was not required to grant such access.

The board hired the law firm Starr Associates, which assigned attorneys Evan Schieber (no longer with the firm) and Andrea L. Roschelle . The attorneys arranged for a "stipulation" — an agreement between attorneys, with the clients' permissions, designed to simplify litigation — that said the condominium would not perform any window washing from Luzzi's terrace and would allow the board to amend the bylaws in the future to provide that unit-owners could not deny the board access for window-washing purposes. The apparent plan, said the court in Board of Mgrs. of Bridge Tower Place Condominium v. Starr Assoc., LLP, "was that the stipulated injunction would be temporary, until the By-Laws could be amended."

Bridge Tower Place, luxury condominium (38 stories, 219 apartments) with... dirty windows.

Tricky thing about words and wording, though: The stipulation said that the condominium "is permanently enjoined from erecting scaffolding or any other form of access to the Premises … for purposes of exterior window washing …"  It also said, however that "[n]othing contained in this stipulation is intended or shall be construed to limit or impair the parties' right or obligations under the condominium's declaration and by-laws…," which the court said both the board and Starr Associates took to mean "that the Stipulation would accomplish the Condominium's goal of using Luzzi's terrace as an anchor for scaffolding that would allow the Condominium to wash the exterior windows of the building." Both Schieber and the attorney for Luzzi signed off on it.

On the Amend: So the condo board went ahead and amended its bylaws in October 2006 to allow it access from Luzzi's terrace in order to wash the windows. All well and good, right?

Wrong. Funny thing about that stipulation phrase "permanently enjoined": It seemed to say that the board was enjoined (i.e., prohibited) permanently (i.e., permanently) from erecting scaffolding on Luzzi's terrace for the purposes of window washing.

That's how Luzzi saw it when he again denied the board access to his terrace for window-washing purposes. And that's how New York Supreme Court Justice Leland DeGrasse saw it, too, in May 2007 when he denied the board's motion for window-washing access. In fact, DeGrasse issued a permanent injunction against it. There's that tricky word again - "permanent." The appeals court, the state's highest, affirmed the ruling in June 2008.

Long story short, the condo board hired private-practice attorney David Bolton to suit Starr Associates for malpractice for "failing to obtain the intended purpose of the Stipulation." Starr blamed it on "the vagaries of the courts" and, anyway, they didn't "guarantee" the stipulation would produce any particular result.

But as Judge Melvin L. Schweitzer wrote in his Dec. 12, 2012, decision granting the condo board summary judgment against the attorneys, "This argument is specious. Defendants clearly believed that they had procured the sought-after result, and the Condominium was reasonable in believing that such was the case. Defendants' contention that the fault is with the courts for coming to a wrong conclusion concerning the wording of the Stipulation is equally specious."

Lesson for lawyers: Probably not a good idea to say it's all the judge's fault. And Starr tried to blame condo-board president Andrew Margulis, a lawyer himself, as well, saying Margulis was micromanaging. The court found no evidence of that, and in fact cited the last e-mail exchange between Margulis and Starr attorney Schieber, in which Schieber said Luzzi's counsel "has made all of my requested changes. I am signing and returning it to him — unless you have an issue." Margulis responded, "That's fine. I'll leave it to your judgment." As the court wrote, "[D]efendants' choice to blame Margulis and the Condominium for their own failings is unfortunate, to say the least."

Lessons for condo and co-op boards: Watch out for that word "permanently." And don't try to change the rules midstream, especially when doing so targets one homeowner specifically, unless there is seriously no other choice for the good of the condo or co-op. After all, and here's a new mantra to remember, there's more than one way to wash a window.

New York Window Cleaning & Elevated Work Accidents

NYPD And FDNY Squabbled Over Scaffolding Rescue: On Friday, the FDNY and NYPD pulled off a dramatic rescue after three window washers were suddenly clinging to life on scaffolding that broke outside a building, 15 stories above 65th Street street. Except it turns out that the 10 minute rescue wasn't exactly pulled off in simpatico: police and firefighters launched separate rescue efforts concurrently, and have been trading barbs about it ever since.

Emergency Service Unit Detectives James Coll rappelled down the side of the building to the workers while a colleague monitored him from the roof. At the same time, firefighters entered a 17th-floor apartment to rescue the men through the windows. In the end, both were necessary to rescuing the workers. But FDNY Battalion Chief Michael Massucci argued in the press that Coll took an unnecessary risk: “I didn’t see the need for him to put himself in harm’s way...The city protocol is that FDNY has all life, safety and rescue operations." Coll retorted: “Well, we’re trained to do this. We have some of the best training and the best equipment to do this.”

Glenn P. Corbett, an associate professor of fire science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, told the Times that the lack of coordination was ridiculous: “This is an ongoing issue that’s been around for a long time, and I think the real critical part is that we were told, several years ago, that the citywide incident management system fixed this, and it did not fix it,” he said. “This was an issue on 9/11, with separate command posts for the Police and Fire Departments, and there continue to be instances where coordination is missing now.” Such as the 911 response system.

New York City Window Washing Accident: In New York City, window washer accidents, like ladder fall accidents, may occur even if the worker takes adequate precautions. In the event of window washing injuries or death, New York has special legal protections for window washers. Window washing is inherently risky because it is done at dangerous heights. In New York City, window washer accidents, like ladder fall accidents, may occur even if the worker takes adequate precautions. In the event of window washing injuries or death, New York has special legal protections for window washers.

Laws that Protect New York Window Washers from Window Washing Injuries and Death: New York state laws require window washer employers to provide their window washing employees with sufficient training and appropriate safety equipment.  The two laws which specifically protect window washers are New York Labor Law Section 240 and New York Labor Law Section 202. If violated these laws provide the basis for a lawsuit. New York Labor Law Section 240, also known as New York's Scaffold Law, protects all workers who work at elevated heights, including window washers. Under this law, building owners and general contractors are obligated to provide workers with proper protection against gravity-related accidents in New York, such as a fall from a ladder. Required safety measures can include secure ladders, anchorage points, safety vests, lifelines, and harnesses. Section 240 places "strict liability" on the part of the property owner and general contractor in the event

• 1. A laborer suffers window washing injuries or death as a result of not having proper protections.
• 2. A ladder, scaffold or other raised work platform is defective and causes the window washer to fall from a height sufficient to cause injury or death.

The term 'strict liability' means that the property owner or contractor may be held liable for compensatory damages paid to the injured window washer, even if the window washer was partially negligent and/or using his own tools. New York Labor Law Section 202 requires owners of buildings, managing agents, window washer employers to provide and require use of proper protection and safety devices to clean exteriors of buildings. More specifically, the owner of a building in New York must have structural features and anchors or other fixed devices on the building for the window washer's protection prior to allowing a worker to clean a window. This means that, according to the law, window washers should not even be permitted to clean unless proper protection is provided. Window washing must be done in a safe manner in conformity with the law's requirements and the rules of the board of standards and appeals.

Workers injured in New York window washing accidents should contact a New York work accident lawyer who has experience representing the victims of a wide variety of manual labor injuries, including those stemming from window washing accidents. If a window washer gets injured due to a violation of these laws, he or she may be entitled to receive compensation for lost wages, medical bills, reduced earning capacity and for pain, suffering and disability. If you are a window washer injured in a fall, don't assume you only have New York Workers' Compensation to cover your medical care and loss of earnings. You may be entitled to seek significant money damages for your window washing injuries. It is important for window washers to clearly understand their full legal rights following New York City window washer accidents.

Injuries Sustained From Workers that Wash Windows: Window washing accidents can occur because of a number of factors. Injuries are caused by faulty or insufficient safety devices. Poor worker training is also a cause of many manual labor injuries. Scaffold and ladder fall injuries are often very serious because they involve falls from heights. Common window washing injuries (ladder fall and scaffold fall) include back injuries, head injuries, severe fractures, spinal cord injuries or broken bones. After a scaffold or ladder fall accident, even an experienced window washer may suddenly be unable to ever work again. A number of victims of New York City window washing accidents suffer fatal injuries.

Victims of New York City window washer accidents and/or their families need to understand their rights.

Access Problems, Cleaning Windows Between Neighbours

John Byron claims John Trayers, who lives in an apartment above him, blocks access to his door when he puts up a ladder to clean his windows.

Row gets messy: Feuding Blackley neighbours fall out over window cleaning - Two neighbours are locked in a bitter feud – over window cleaning. John Byron, who lives in a ground-floor flat, complained when John Trayers – who lives in the apartment above – began using a ladder when he washed his windows. Mr Byron claimed the ladder blocked access to his front door. The pair had a blazing row about the issue – which ended with Mr Byron locking himself in his flat to avoid his neighbour.

Both men then went to Northwards Housing, which owns the properties in Elder Mount Road, Cheetham Hill, asking them to take action. Northwards have now written to Mr Trayers, 50, advising him to send Mr Byron a note giving 24 hours’ notice when he intends to put up the ladder. The letter, in the name of Rob Doherty, Northwards’ local services manager, reads: “As you do not want to speak to your neighbour when cleaning your windows I think the best way forward is that when you intend to clean the windows in the future you post him a brief note the day before with the time you expect to clean the windows the following day.”

Mr Byron, 45, who is on disability benefits, said he had been hoping to reach an agreement face-to-face. He claimed Mr Trayers had not been willing to co-operate. Mr Byron said: “He has been left in this situation because of his unwillingness to speak.  “Northwards Housing and myself wanted mediation. “When he first put the ladder up I could not see who was at the top and thought someone was breaking in.  “When John came down he flew off the handle at me and I threw him off my property. “I locked myself in my home.”

Unemployed Mr Trayers is seeking legal advice over Northwards’ ruling. He said: “I find the whole thing ridiculous. “The idea that I will put a note through his door when I want to clean my windows – it just doesn’t happen.  “I’m entitled to clean them. He has never had problems with this before. It is nonsense. “It is ridiculous that they are telling me what to do.” Mr Trayers said the claim he could be hindering Mr Byron entering his flat was ludicrous – as Mr Byron has a back door. He added: “I would rather not clean my windows than speak to him or put a note through his door.  “It is not about cleaning windows. It is all about principles.” A spokesman for Northwards declined to comment, but said they hoped the neighbours could resolve their dispute.

The letter sent to Mr Trayers.