You are here: / / Non-Supervising Property Owner Not Liable Under Common Law or Labor Law...

Non-Supervising Property Owner Not Liable Under Common Law or Labor Law 200 for Injury Stemming from the Manner In Which the Work Is Done

The Fourth Department noted that no liability attaches to the non-supervising property owner under Labor Law 200 or common law negligence when the worker's injury stems from the manner in which the work was performed and not from the condition of the work site:

“It is settled law that where the alleged defect or dangerous condition arises from the contractor's methods and the owner exercises no supervisory control over the operation, no liability attaches to the owner under the common law or under section 200 of the Labor Law” … . Here, defendants met their initial burden by establishing that plaintiff's accident resulted from the manner in which the work was performed, not from any dangerous condition on the premises, and defendants exercised no supervisory control over the work… . Zimmer v Town of Lancaster Indus Dev Agency, 2015 NY Slip Op 01023, 4th Dept 2-6-15


You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN HE REPRESENTED HIMSELF AT RESENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT). ​
LAW FIRM’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE WHERE AN ACTION HAS BEEN SETTLED EXPLAINED.
AT THE TIME THE POLICE PARKED THE POLICE CAR BEHIND THE CAR IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER SUCH THAT THE DRIVER COULD NOT LEAVE THE AREA, THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT THE OCCUPANTS OF THE CAR HAD COMMITTED A CRIME; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
State Claims Re: Alleged Release of Toxins During Love Canal Clean-Up Not Precluded (Preempted) by Federal CERCLA Remedy
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THRESHOLD STRIP WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSE PLAINTIFF TO SLIP AND FALL WAS NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS AND TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST A FIRST-YEAR RESIDENT, WHO DID NOT EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN FOLLOWING THE DIRECTION OF HIS SUPERVISORS TO DISCONTINUE A MEDICATION, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMSSED; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).
SEIZURE OF DEFENDANT WAS BASED UPON AN ANONYMOUS TIP, SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).
Order Granting a Motion In Limine Is Appealable If It Effectively Limits the Presentation of a Legal Theory at Trial

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

Teacher at a Community College Entitled to Unemployment Insurance Benefits—Teacher... Warrantless Search of Defendant’s Jacket Not Justified–Defendant...