You are here: / / Dismissal of Labor Law 240, 241 and 200 Actions

Dismissal of Labor Law 240, 241 and 200 Actions

In affirming the dismissal of Labor Law causes of action against a defendant who was not an owner, contractor or statutory agent, and who did not supervise or control work performance, the Second Department explained the relevant principles:

Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) apply to owners, contractors, and their agents (see Labor Law §§ 240[1], 241[6];…). A party is deemed to be an agent of an owner or general contractor under the Labor Law when it has supervisory control and authority over the work being done where a plaintiff is injured…. Similarly, where, as here, a claim against a defendant arises out of alleged defects or dangers in the methods or materials of the work, recovery cannot be had under Labor Law § 200 or pursuant to the principles of common-law negligence unless it is shown that the party to be charged under that theory of liability had the authority to supervise or control the performance of the work .   Medina v RM Resources, 2013 NY Slip Op 04582, 2nd Dept, 6-19-13

 

You might also like
Time-Limit for Serving a Complaint Was Never Triggered Because the Summons with Notice Was Filed But Not Yet Served at the Time Defendants Served a Notice of Appearance and Demand for a Complaint
In a Prohibition Proceeding Brought Under Article 78, Trial Judge’s Mistrial Order Deemed Improper, Retrial Precluded​
BANK’S EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
Court’s Quashing of Defense Subpoena Deprived Defendant of Right to Present a Defense​
A MONETARY PENALTY IMPOSED UPON PLAINTIFF’S ATTORNEY, AS OPPOSED TO DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT, WAS THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE DISCOVERY (SECOND DEPT).
​ A VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE OF A FORECLOSURE ACTION NO LONGER STOPS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN ATTEMPTING TO SERVE DEFENDANT BEFORE RESORTING TO NAIL AND MAIL; THE PROCESS SERVER WAS AWARE OF DEFENDANT’S PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT BUT DID NOT ATTEMPT TO SERVE DEFENDANT THERE (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE LOFT BOARD PROPERLY REJECTED TENANTS’ REQUEST TO WITHDRAW THEIR APPLICATIONS FOR COVERAGE UNDER THE LOFT LAW FOLLOWING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE LANDLORD; HERE THE LANDLORD HELD COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WHICH INCLUDED THE TENANTS’ RESIDENCES IN THE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY; THE LANDLORD HAD SETTLED WITH THE TENANTS, AGREEING TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND CONVERT THE PROPERTY TO RENT STABILIZED RESIDENCES (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

Town Law Applies to Fire District Election Alleged Failure to Secure Mirror Which Fell During Removal Required Jury Charge...