You are here: / / Failure to Identify Industrial Code Violation in Pleadings Not Fatal/Supervisory...

Failure to Identify Industrial Code Violation in Pleadings Not Fatal/Supervisory Criteria for Labor Law 200(1) Action Explained

In reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined summary judgment should not have been granted to the defendants on the Labor Law 241(6) and 200(1) causes of action.  Plaintiff was injured when he prevented himself from falling because of a missing plank on a scaffold.  The court noted that the plaintiff’s failure to identify the breach of an Industrial Code provision in the complaint and bill of particulars was not fatal to the 241(6) claim (the allegation of a specific code violation was subsequently provided). And the court explained the criteria for liability under Labor Law 200(1):

Although a plaintiff asserting a Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action must allege a violation of a specific and concrete provision of the Industrial Code …, a failure to identify the Code provision in the complaint or bill of particulars is not fatal to such a claim … . The plaintiff’s belated allegations that the defendants third-party plaintiffs violated 12 NYCRR 23-5.1(c), 23-5.1(e)(1), 23-5.1(f), and 23-5.3(f) involved no new factual allegations, raised no new theories of liability, and caused no prejudice to the defendants third-party plaintiffs …. The defendants third-party plaintiffs were put on sufficient notice that the cause of action alleging violations of Labor Law § 241(6) related to missing scaffold planks through the plaintiff’s bill of particulars and deposition testimony. Thus, they cannot reasonably claim prejudice or surprise. * * *

Where, as here, a plaintiff’s claim arises out of alleged defects or dangers in the methods or materials of the work, to prevail on a Labor Law § 200 cause of action, the plaintiff must show that the defendant “had the authority to supervise or control the performance of the work” … . “A defendant has the authority to supervise or control the work for purposes of Labor Law § 200 when that defendant bears the responsibility for the manner in which the work is performed” … . “[T]he right to generally supervise the work, stop the contractor’s work if a safety violation is noted, or to ensure compliance with safety regulations and contract specifications is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200 or for common-law negligence”… . Klimowicz v Powell Cove Assoc, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 07158, 2nd Dept 11-6-13

 

You might also like
Conviction Reversed—Court Denied For Cause Challenge to Biased Juror Without Eliciting an Unequivocal Assurance the Juror Will Be Impartial
Pleading Requirements for Unjust Enrichment and Fraud Not Met
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLEA OFFER, RAISED THE POSSIBILITY THAT DEFENDANT ACCEPTED THE PLEA OFFER TO MAKE SURE HIS BAIL WOULD NOT BE INCREASED; DEFENDANT WAS WORRIED ABOUT BEING ABLE TO FIND CARE FOR HIS THREE-YEAR-OLD SON; BAIL SHOULD NOT BE A CONSIDERATION IN PLEA NEGOTIATIONS; THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (FIRST DEPT).
Questions of Fact Raised About Fairness of Facially Valid Prenuptial Agreement
PLAINTIFF SERVED THE COMPLAINT ON NOVEMBER 27, 2018; DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO SERVE AN ANSWER, WHICH WAS REJECTED, ON JANUARY 9, 2019; DEFENDANT’S EXCUSE WAS “THE DELAY WAS CAUSED BY THE INSURANCE CARRIER;” THAT EXCUSE WAS INSUFFICIENT AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ACCEPT THE ANSWER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO DISMISS THE NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY IN THIS THIRD PARTY ASSAULT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT DID NOT RULE OUT LIABILITY BASED UPON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT SECURITY COMPANY AND THE COMPANY PROVIDING SECURITY AT THE TIME OF THE ASSAULT (SECOND DEPT).
Motion to Set Aside a Verdict Properly Denied When Based Upon an Error Not Preserved by Objection
THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT IDENTIFY THE RECORDS RELIED UPON FOR THE CALCULATIONS AND DID NOT ATTACH THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS; IN ADDITION THE HEARING ON NOTICE REQUIRED BY CPLR 4313 WAS NOT HELD (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

Police Officer (a Passenger in a Police Car) Who Was Injured by Underinsured... Criteria for Taxpayer Lawsuit Against School District for Misuse of Public Property...