You are here: / / Subcontractor Which Supervised Plaintiff’s Work Was An Agent for...

Subcontractor Which Supervised Plaintiff’s Work Was An Agent for the General Contractor

The Second Department determined a subcontractor which assumed a supervisory role over plaintiff’s work was liable under Labor Law 240(1) as an agent of the general contractor:

To hold a defendant liable as an agent of the general contractor for violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), there must be a showing that it had the authority to supervise and control the work … . “The determinative factor is whether the party had the right to exercise control over the work, not whether it actually exercised that right” … . Where the owner or general contractor does in fact delegate the duty to conform to the requirements of the Labor Law to a third-party subcontractor, the subcontractor becomes the statutory agent of the owner or general contractor … . Van Blerkom v America Painting LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 05858, 2nd Dept 8-20-14

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT DRIVER’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, WHICH CONTRADICTED THE ACCIDENT REPORT AND MV-104 FORM, DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Law Office Failure Justified Vacation of Default Judgment
Failure to Follow Statutory Risk-Level-Determination Procedure Violated Defendant’s Due Process Rights
ALTHOUGH ONLY STEPHEN BOTT SIGNED THE NOTE, BOTH HE AND CHRISTINE BOTT SIGNED THE MORTGAGE; THEREFORE CHRISTINE BOTT WAS A “BORROWER” ENTITLED TO SEPARATE NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE PURSUANT TO RPAPL 1304; THE JOINT NOTICE WAS INVALID (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE TO VACATE GUILTY PLEA ON GROUND HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES.
THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT A MOTION TO CONFIRM A REFEREE’S REPORT IN A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING BE MADE BEFORE A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE MAY BE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE GAS COMPANY’S LIABILITY FOR A GAS EXPLOSION TRIGGERED BY A TREE UPROOTED DURING A HURRICANE, GAS COMPANY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS MAILED TO DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT’S DENIAL OF RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (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

Failure to Identify in the Complaint and Bill of Particulars the Specific Code... Firefighter Injured in Apartment Fire Which Stemmed from the Use of a Cooking...