You are here: / / Labor Law 200 Action Is Not Based Upon Supervision or Control of Plaintiff’s...

Labor Law 200 Action Is Not Based Upon Supervision or Control of Plaintiff’s Work, But Rather on the Property Owner’s Creation or Failure to Remedy a Dangerous Condition

The Second Department noted that a negligence case of action pursuant to Labor Law 200 is not based upon supervision or control over the plaintiff’s work, but rather is based upon whether the property owner (the Town)ncreated or failed to remedy a dangerous condition:

The Supreme Court also properly denied those branches of the Town’s motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action insofar as asserted against it. Before the Supreme Court and on appeal, in support of these branches of its motion, the Town focused exclusively upon its alleged lack of supervision of, or control over, the plaintiff’s work. That argument is only relevant where the claimed injury arises from the manner in which the work is performed … . Where, as here, the injury arises from an allegedly defective or dangerous condition on the premises, the allegedly unsecured and improperly stored electrical wire, a property owner will be liable under a theory of common-law negligence, as codified by Labor Law § 200, when the owner created the alleged dangerous or defective condition, or failed to remedy a dangerous or defective condition of which it had actual or constructive notice … . Baumann v Town of Islip, 2014 NY Slip Op 05825, 2nd Dept 8-20-14

 

You might also like
(Harmless) Error for Prosecutor to Ask If Other Witnesses’ Testimony Was Untrue and to Ask About Defendant’s Silence Upon Apprehension
Counts Rendered Duplicitous by Trial Testimony/Prosecution Held to Erroneous Jury Charge to Which No Objection Was Made/Prosecutorial Misconduct Mandated a New Trial
ALTHOUGH THE ARRESTING OFFICER OBSERVED SOME INTERACTIONS WITH OTHERS BY THE DEFENDANT AT A LOCATION KNOWN FOR DRUG ACTIVITY, THE OFFICER DID NOT SEE ANY PROPERTY OR CURRENCY CHANGE HANDS AND DID NOT FIND ANY DRUGS OR CURRENCY ON THE DEFENDANT OR THE TWO MEN WITH HIM ON THE STREET; THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE FOR DEFENDANT’S ARREST; THE HEROIN SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND IN THE POLICE CAR AND DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT HE HAD “DITCHED” THE DRUGS IN THE CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Causes of Action Discussed in Extensive Modification of Supreme Court’s Orders
THE REMAINDER BENEFICIARIES’ ACTION ALLEGING THE EXECUTOR’S VIOLATION OF A STANDSTILL AGREEMENT, WHICH REQUIRED THE EXECUTOR TO KEEP THE FUNDS FROM THE SALE OF THE DECEASED’S BUSINESS IN A SEGREGATED ACCOUNT UNTIL THE DAUGHTERS’ REMAINDER INTERESTS WERE DETERMINED, DID NOT VIOLATE THE IN TERROREM CLAUSE OF THE WILL WHICH PROHIBITED THE DAUGHTERS FROM CONTESTING THE WILL, SURROGATE’S COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS; DEFENDANT AVERRED HIS ATTORNEY DIDN’T REQUEST THE SEARCH WARRANT DOCUMENTS, DIDN’T MAKE A SUPPRESSION MOTION, AND DIDN’T INFORM HIM THAT THE LEGALITY OF THE SEARCH WARRANTS COULD BE CONTESTED (SECOND DEPT).
INDICTMENTS IN TWO COUNTIES RELATED TO THE SAME CONTINUOUS CONDUCT AND THE SAME VICTIM; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA IN NASSAU COUNTY AFTER A GUILTY PLEA IN SUFFOLK COUNTY VIOLATED THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE OF GENERAL CLEANING PRACTICES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID ON THE FLOOR, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE PROPERLY DENIED.

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

Law of Contracts, Not Law of Torts, Applied to Conflict of Laws Analysis Concerning... Even Though the Appeal Had Been Rendered Moot, It Was Appropriate for the Appellate...