You are here: / / Construction Manager Did Not Have the Contractual Authority to Control...

Construction Manager Did Not Have the Contractual Authority to Control the Manner In Which Work Was Done and In Fact Did Not Control the Manner In Which Work Was Done—Labor Law 240 (1) and 200 Causes of Action Properly Dismissed

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly dismissed Labor Law 240 (1) and 200 causes of action against the construction manager because the construction manager (Sano-Rubin) did not possess the contractual authority to control, and in fact did not control, the manner in which the work was done.  The court explained the analytical criteria:

At the time of plaintiff’s injury, Sano-Rubin was serving as the construction manager for various construction projects occurring throughout the school district pursuant to a contract it had entered into with the school district. Plaintiff initially contends that there are factual issues as to whether Sano-Rubin’s role renders it a statutory defendant under Labor Law § 240 (1), which “imposes liability only on contractors, owners or their agents” … . Under this provision, a party that is operating as a construction manager is not deemed a statutory agent unless that party has “the authority to direct, supervise or control the work which brought about the injury” … . “The key criterion in ascertaining Labor Law § 240 (1) liability is not whether the party charged with the violation actually exercised control over the work, but rather whether [that party] had the right to do so” … . Similarly, under Labor Law § 200, which codifies the common-law duty of care as between owners, general contractors and their agents, the imposition of liability requires a showing that the defendant possessed the authority to direct or control the activity resulting in injury … .

Sano-Rubin’s contract with the school district provided that Sano-Rubin “shall not have control over or charge of and shall not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in connection with the [w]ork of each of the [c]ontractors” and further, that if Sano-Rubin “observes any safety program or action at the site which it believes is improper or in violation of applicable law or rules, it shall immediately advise the [o]wner.” This contract was submitted upon the cross motion, together with proof of the implementation of these contractual limitations on Sano-Rubin’s authority … , These submissions were sufficient to establish its prima facie right to judgment as a matter of law… . Larkin v Sano-Rubin Constr Co Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 00672, 3rd Dept 1-29-15

 

You might also like
WASTEWATER TREATMENT COMPANY’S CONTRACT WITH THE MUNICIPALITY WAS NOT VOID; THE CONTRACT WAS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THERE WAS NO PROOF THE BID SPECIFICATIONS WERE IMPROPERLY DEVELOPED WITH THE COMPANY OR DESIGNED TO ENSURE THE COMPANY RECEIVED THE CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONERS’ CHALLENGE TO THE NEW PROVISIONS OF THE ELECTION LAW ADDRESSING THE NEW PROCESS OF CANVASSING ABSENTEE BALLOTS WAS PRECLUDED BY THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES (THIRD DEPT). ​
Plea Allocution Insufficient—Plea Vacated in Absence of Motion to Withdraw or Vacate
PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A FOOTING FOR A TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE WHICH HAD BEEN REMOVED; ALTHOUGH THE CITY APPROVED THE REMOVAL OF THE POLE IT PLAYED NO ROLE IN ITS REMOVAL; THEREFORE THE CITY DID NOT CREATE THE CONDITION AND THE LACK OF WRITTEN NOTICE RELIEVED THE CITY OF LIABILITY (THIRD DEPT).
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE ON BEHALF OF THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR PROTECTION OF PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS; THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY DID NOT KNOWINGLY CONSENT AND DID NOT MAINTAIN CONTROL OVER THE PROSECUTION; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
EVIDENCE PETITIONER HAD ACCESS TO THE AREA WHERE THE CONTRABAND WAS FOUND WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE PETITIONER’S POSSESSION OF THE CONTRABAND (THIRD DEPT).
THE 3RD DEPARTMENT ANNULLED THE DETERMINATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD (PERB) WHICH FOUND THAT THE FIREFIGHTERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CITY FAILED TO NEGOTIATE BEFORE UNILATERALLY IMPOSING A SALARY REDUCTION (THIRD DEPT).
WARREN COUNTY DID NOT HAVE “PARTICULAR EFFECT” JURISDICTION OVER CRIMINAL OFFENSES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED IN SARATOGA COUNTY (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Responsibility for Payments for a 1999 Claim (Which Was Reopened After 13 Years)... Four-Month Statute of Limitations Starts Running When Administrative Agency’s...