You are here: / / “General Supervision” of Work Site Did Not Trigger Liability...

“General Supervision” of Work Site Did Not Trigger Liability Under Labor Law 241(6)

The Second Department determined  a company (Draghi) hired by the home builder (Majestic)  to do framing work and general supervision was not liable to plaintiff (who was injured when he tripped while using stilts to work on the ceiling) under Labor Law 241(6):

Draghi demonstrated its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action insofar as asserted against it by establishing that it was not an owner, general contractor, or statutory agent of the owner or general contractor … . Draghi did not hire any contractors and was not charged with “the duty of co-ordinating all aspects of [the] construction project” … . Rather, Draghi merely assumed a role of “general supervision,” pursuant to which it checked the progress of the work and reported to Magestic … . Draghi demonstrated that it did not have the ability to control the activity which brought about the plaintiff’s injury … . Thus, Draghi established that it could not be held liable under Labor Law § 241(6)… . Gonzalez v Magestic Fine Custom Home, 2014 NY Slip Op 01713, 2nd Dept 3-19-14

 

You might also like
THE RECENT COURT OF APPEALS DECISION ALLOWING A VETERINARIAN’S OFFICE TO BE SUED IN NEGLIGENCE WHEN A PATRON WAS BITTEN BY A DOG IN THE WAITING ROOM DID NOT EXTEND TO A RESTAURANT OWNER WHO ALLOWS PATRONS TO BRING THEIR LEASHED DOGS TO THE RESTAURANT; THE STRICT LIABILITY “NOTICE OF VICIOUS PROPENSITIES” STANDARD APPLIED TO THE RESTAURANT OWNER (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED A PETITION SEEKING AN ORDER FOR FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT RESIDENT STATUS.
“Conclusory” Allegation Rear-End Collision Was Caused by the Sudden Stop of the Lead Vehicle Is Not Enough to Defeat Plaintiffs’ Summary Judgment Motion
DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION PROPERLY GRANTED, ELEMENTS OF PRE-AMENDMENT PROOF OF A CLAIM OF RIGHT APPLIED TO THE DISPUTED PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Could Not Demonstrate Valid “Nail and Mail” Service
UNDER A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, THE PEOPLE DID NOT DISPROVE DEFENDANT’S AGENCY DEFENSE; THE VERDICT WAS REPUGNANT IN THAT GUILTY AND NOT GUILTY FINDINGS CAN NOT BE RECONCILED (SECOND DEPT).
BANK EMPLOYEE’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE 90 DAY NOTICE WAS PROPERLY SERVED.
ALTHOUGH THE BETTER PRACTICE IS TO SUBMIT A SEPARATE AFFIRMATION, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S PRIMARY AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT TO A VOCATIONAL EXAM DESCRIBED THE GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE, THE MOTION TO COMPEL WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

County Not Entitled to Dismissal of Suit Seeking Refund of Taxes Declared Wrongly... Bicyclist’s Negligence as a Matter of Law Did Not Warrant Summary Judgment...