You are here: / / Agents of Property Owner Can Be Liable Under Labor Law 240(1)

Agents of Property Owner Can Be Liable Under Labor Law 240(1)

In reversing a verdict after trial, the Second Department noted that the Labor Law imposes liability upon the agents of the property owner, as well as the owner and general contractor:

In addition to owners and general contractors, Labor Law § 240(1) imposes liability upon agents of the property owner who have the ability to control the activity which brought about the injury … . * * * In light of the trial evidence, the jury should have been instructed to determine whether the defendants were acting as the homeowner’s agent, with the authority to supervise and control the injured plaintiff’s work on the roof … . Accordingly, since the error was not harmless a new trial is required… . Arto v Cairo Constr Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 05863, Second Dept 9-18-13

 

You might also like
THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANT ATTORNEY OVERBILLED SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED THE MOTION TO DISMISS DESPITE THE DISMISSAL OF THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Husband, Criminally Responsible for the Death of His Mother-in-Law, Could Not Inherit the Mother-in-Law’s Estate Indirectly After the Death of His Wife
HOMEOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, HOMEOWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HE DID NOT CONTROL AND SUPERVISE PLAINTIFF’S WORK OR DID NOT CREATE OR WAS NOT AWARE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION.
Child’s Out-of-Court Statements Corroborated by Child Abuse Expert/Hearsay Provided Adequate Basis for Finding of Abuse
DEFENDANT ASKED PLAINTIFF TO WIRE THE LOAN PROCEEDS TO A BANK IN NEW YORK; NEW YORK THEREFORE HAD JURISDICTION, PURSUANT TO CPLR 302, OVER THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION STEMMING FROM DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAY THE LOAN (SECOND DEPT).
Supplemental Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (SUM) Provision Triggered When an Individual Would Be Afforded More Coverage by the Policy with the SUM Provision
AN INSURER WHO HAS NO DUTY TO DEFEND THE INSUREDS BECAUSE OF LATE NOTIFICATION, IN THE ABSENCE OF A PROVISION IN THE POLICY, MAY NOT RECOVER THE COSTS OF DEFENDING THE ACTION FROM THE INSUREDS AND THE SUCCESSFUL PLAINTIFF IN THE UNDERLYING ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
GUARANTY WHICH DID NOT HAVE A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE DEEMED TO BE SUBJECT TO THE CLAUSE IN A RELATED CONTRACT EXECUTED CLOSE IN TIME, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, OUTSIDE PROOF NECESSARY.

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 Contribution to Purchase of Home by Wife’s Parents Constituted... Defendant Did Not Consent to Entry of Police Into His Home—the Police...