You are here: / / “Safety Consultant” Liable for Failure to Maintain Safe Work Site

“Safety Consultant” Liable for Failure to Maintain Safe Work Site

In upholding a jury verdict, the Third Department determined there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that a safety consultant was liable under Labor Law 241 (6) for failing to maintain a safe work site:

Labor Law § 241 (6) “‘requires owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety for workers and to comply with the specific safety rules and regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of the Department of Labor'”…. Although a safety consultant generally is not liable to an injured worker under the Labor Law…,it is not the title that is dispositive, but whether such defendant had sufficient supervision and control over the activity that resulted in the injury….  We have previously stated that “[s]ubcontractors may be liable as agents under Labor Law § 241(6) when they have been specifically contractually delegated the duty or obligation to correct unsafe conditions or maintain work site safety”… .

The contract …set forth that a representative of defendant would be at the work site daily, make inspections, conduct safety meetings and have authority to require “immediate corrective action for imminent danger situations.” Defendant’s representative was continuously at the site throughout the project, and he exercised his power on several occasions prior to the accident by stopping work and requiring defendant to take specific precautions or actions. He was present when the accident occurred.  Leszczynski v Town of Neversink, 514876, 3rd Dept, 6-13-13

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS DURING THE PLEA ALLOCUTION NEGATED ELEMENTS OF THE CHARGED OFFENSE; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED AN INQUIRY OR GIVEN THE DEFENDANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA; THIS ISSUE FALLS WITHIN AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT (THIRD DEPT).
THE REVOCATION OF PETITIONER’S MEDICAL LICENSE WAS CONFIRMED; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE REQUIRED STANDARD OF CARE, ESPECIALLY AS THE STANDARD APPLIES TO TERMINALLY ILL PATIENTS WHO CONSENT TO AGGRESSIVE TREATMENT (THIRD DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PREMATURE, PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL MIGHT BE AN ISSUE DETERMINING WHETHER WORKERS’ COMPENSATION IS THE SOLE REMEDY, FURTHER DISCOVERY NEEDED.
FIREFIGHTER’S INJURY FROM TOXIC FUMES UNRELATED TO A FIRE CONSTITUTED AN ACCIDENT ENTITLING FIREFIGHTER TO DISABILITY BENEFITS.
FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, JUROR WAS A LONG-TERM FRIEND OF AN INVESTIGATOR WORKING ON DEFENDANT’S CASE.
Corrections Officer Not Entitled to Performance of Duty Disability Benefits Based Upon Injury Stemming from Aiding an Inmate Who Was Having a Seizure
TOWN LAW DID NOT PROHIBIT PETITIONER FROM RUNNING FOR TOWN JUSTICE IN TWO DIFFERENT TOWNS SIMULTANEOUSLY (THIRD DEPT).
THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DID NOT PRECLUDE THIS ACTION TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE PURPORTED 2017 ELECTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS; THE PRIOR ACTION CONCERNED ONLY THE VALIDITY OF THE PURPORTED 2019 ELECTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS (THIRD 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

Husband’s Dissipation of His Separate Property Was a Factor in Increasing... Inmate’s “Employee Assistant” Did Not Provide Meaningful Assistance in...