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
CVS, A DEFENDANT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, HAD BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHICH IS THE EQUIVALENT OF JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL; DEFENDANT DOCTORS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT CVS’S PROVIDING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WITH THE WRONG DOSAGE OF MEDICINE MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO HIS DEATH (SECOND DEPT).
Late Notice of Claim Disallowed
Denial of Mother’s Request to Relocate Reversed, Factors Described
MOTION TO RENEW SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED AS A MOTION TO REARGUE, NEW EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PRESENTED.
A Conditional Judgment May Be Rendered On the Issue of Contractual Indemnity—The Party Seeking Contractual Indemnity Must Be Free from Negligence
A HEARING IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ON THE DOORMAN OF DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT BUILDING WAS VALID (SECOND DEPT).
WHEN DETERMINING THE VALUE OF A PARTNERSHIP SHARE UPON DISSOLUTION, A MINORITY DISCOUNT CAN PROPERLY BE APPLIED TO A PARTNER WHO WRONGFULLY DISSOLVED THE PARTNERSHIP AND WHO DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE PARTNERSHIP AS A GOING CONCERN.
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED DEFENDANTS’ AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT REQUEST THAT RELIEF (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

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...