You are here: / / abor Law Definition of “General Contractor” Applies In Subrogation...
,

abor Law Definition of “General Contractor” Applies In Subrogation Action

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined that the Style defendants, whose role in a building project was limited to procuring the building permit and some minor carpentry, were not the general contractor for the project and were therefore entitled to summary judgment.  After paying the fire-related claim, plaintiff insurance company brought a subrogation action against the Style defendants (as the alleged general contractor). In finding the Style defendants were not the general contractor, the Second Department used the definition of “general contractor” applied under the Labor Law:

The Style defendants established, prima facie, that they were not the general contractor on the … renovation project through the submission of evidence showing that they did not undertake general contractor duties such as supervising, hiring, or paying contractors … . The evidence submitted in support of the Style defendants’ motion demonstrated, prima facie, that the Berensons hired the Baruch defendants as the general contractor on the project, and that the Baruch defendants undertook general contractor duties by coordinating and supervising the project, and hiring and paying subcontractors … . The evidence demonstrated that the only function the Style defendants performed in connection with the renovation project was obtaining the work permit and, at most, performing some minor carpentry and molding work at the beginning of the project … . * * *

…. [T]he rule enunciated in [the] Labor Law cases, which is based on the basic definition of a general contractor as one who, for instance, coordinates and supervises the work and hires and pays subcontractors … , applies equally to this subrogation action. To ignore our Labor Law precedent in this action would, in effect, create a different definition of a general contractor in the subrogation/property damage context, one that would confer general contractor status on an entity simply by virtue of it being listed as the contractor on a work permit. There is no persuasive reason for having two separate definitions of a general contractor, one for the Labor Law/personal injury context and another for the subrogation/property damage context… . Utica Mut Ins Co v Style Mgt Assoc Corp, 2015 NY Slip Op 01266, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

You might also like
Subcontractor Which Supervised Plaintiff’s Work Was An Agent for the General Contractor
LOANING PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT A CAR WITH A BROKEN FUEL GAUGE WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH; THE CAR RAN OUT OF GAS AND PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT PULLED OVER ONTO THE SHOULDER OF A TWO-LANE ROAD; SHE WAS STRUCK BY A HIT AND RUN DRIVER WHILE PUTTING GAS IN THE CAR WITH A GAS CAN (SECOND DEPT).
CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE ROADWAY DEPRESSION WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S BICYCLE ACCIDENT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.
THE LAWSUIT AGAINST DEFENDANT RESIDENTIAL NURSING FACILITY STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S COVID-19-RELATED DEATH IS PRECLUDED BY THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA); THE REPEAL OF THE ACT IS NOT RETROACTIVE (SECOND DEPT).
THE BUSINESS RECORDS UPON WHICH THE CALCULATIONS IN THE REFEREE’S REPORT WERE BASED WERE NOT SUBMITTED; THE REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDERS RESPONDING TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC, THE TIME BETWEEN THE FILING OF A FELONY COMPLAINT AND ARRAIGNMENT ON AN INDICTMENT WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE SPEEDY TRIAL CLOCK; HERE THE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DIMSISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Ordinary Negligence Standard Applied Where Ambulance (Responding to an Emergency) Struck Plaintiff Who Was Lawfully in the Crosswalk/Questions of Fact Whether There Was a “Special Relationship” Between the City’s Crossing Guard and the Plaintiff, and Whether the Crossing Guard Was Performing Ministerial, Rather than Discretionary, Functions (Such that the City Could Be Held Liable)
MOTION TO RENEW PROPERLY USED TO CORRECT DEFECT IN INITIAL PAPERS (DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS UNSIGNED), PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT BAR SERVED DRIVER WHEN HE WAS VISIBLY INTOXICATED (DRAM SHOP ACT).

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

Comments Made by Dean and Assistant Dean in Their Professional Capacities Protected... Principles of Owner/Contractor’s Liability Pursuant to Labor Law 241 (6)...