You are here: / / Liability of Prime Contractors and Subcontractors Explained

Liability of Prime Contractors and Subcontractors Explained

In affirming the motion court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendant prime contractor and defendant subcontractors, the Second Department clearly described the relevant proof requirements for Labor Law 200, 240 (1), 241 (6) and common-law negligence causes of action.  Giovanniello v E W Howell, Co., LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 01805, 2011-11465, Ind No 26676/09, 2nd Dept. 3-20-13

 

You might also like
THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
Father’s New York Custody Petition Not Preempted by Dominican Republic Court’s Denial of Father’s Application for Return of the Child
A LANDLORD WHO SEEKS TO RETAIN PART OF A TENANT’S SECURITY DEPOSIT MUST PROVIDE THE TENANT WITH AN ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF THE DAMAGE WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE VACATION OF THE PROPERTY; HERE THE ITEMIZED STATEMENT WAS SIX DAYS LATE, PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE LANDLORD (SECOND DEPT). ​
COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE WHISTLEBLOWER STATUTE.
Single Act of Excessive Corporal Punishment Justified Neglect and Derivative Neglect Findings/Single Act of Domestic Violence Did Not Justify Neglect and Derivative Neglect Findings—No Proof the Three-Month-Old Child Was Aware of the Domestic-Violence Incident
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AFTER TRIAL ON THE GROUND PLAINTIFF DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSION OF THE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED TO MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE; COMPLAINT REINSTATED AND JUDGMENT AWARDED TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, REVOKED THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT IN THIS FORECLOSURE CASE BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT SEEK THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT).
THE “BUILDING” DEFENDANTS AND THE COMPANY WHICH INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THE AIR CONDITIONING UNIT WHICH ALLEGEDLY LEAKED WATER ON THE FLOOR WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD; THE “BUILDING” DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDITION; AND THE COMPANY WHICH INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THE AIR CONDITIONER DID NOT SHOW IT DID NOT LAUNCH AND INSTRUMENT OF HARM (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Weight of Evidence Review Applies to More than Just Credibility—It Also Applies... False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution, and 1983 Actions Allowed to Proceed