You are here: / / Criteria for Causes of Action Under Labor Law 200 and Common Law Negligence...

Criteria for Causes of Action Under Labor Law 200 and Common Law Negligence (Where the Methods or Materials of the Work Are Alleged to Be the Cause of the Injury) Explained

In finding that the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action should have been dismissed, the Second Department explained the criteria for those causes of action when they are based on the manner in which work is performed, as opposed to dangerous or defective conditions on the premises:

A cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence may arise from either dangerous or defective premises conditions at a work site or the manner in which the work is performed … . Where, as here, a claim arises out of alleged defects or dangers in the methods or materials of the work, recovery cannot be had under Labor Law § 200 unless it is shown that the party to be charged 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 … . Rodriguez v Trades Constr Servs Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 07141, 2nd Dept 10-22-14

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF BANK’S REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON UNIDENTIFIED DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE NOT ATTACHED TO HER AFFIDAVIT TO DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH SOME MONETARY RELIEF WAS SOUGHT, THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF THE CLAIM WAS A DECLARATION VERIZON HAD WRONGFULLY DISCONTINUED CLAIMANT’S LIFELINE SERVICE; THEREFORE THE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED AS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Provide Statutory Notice of a Motion to Enter a Default Judgment to a Defendant Who Has Appeared in the Case Is a Jurisdictional Defect Rendering the Default Judgment a Nullity
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY LACKED CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF CRUMBLING ASPHALT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Business Connections to New York Insufficient to Confer Jurisdiction Under CPLR 301 or 302, Criteria Explained
Prosecutor’s Creating the Impression Non-Testifying Witness Identified Defendant as Shooter Violated Defendant’s Right to Confront the Witnesses Against Him
SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF VIDEOTAPE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).
“Sua Sponte” Dismissal of Complaint Based on Lack of Standing Reversed

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

Request for Redacted Signatures on Sheriff’s Department Overtime Records... Injury While Trying to Prevent a Ladder (Used by a Co-worker) from Falling Is...