You are here: / / SUBTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT...
,

SUBTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 200/COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION.

The Second Department determined defendant general contractor (Metro) was not entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action, but was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action. Plaintiff was injured when the knot on a rope he was tied to while pushing snow off a roof gave way and he fell three stories. The decision illustrates the subtle difference between the amount of supervisory control necessary to hold a general contractor liable under Labor Law 240(1) and the greater amount of supervisory control necessary to hold a general contractor liable under Labor Law 200 and common law negligence:

 

The failure of an owner or an agent of the owner “to furnish or erect suitable devices to protect workers when work is being performed” results in absolute liability against that owner or the owner’s agent under the statute … , and the duty to provide a suitable safety device under Labor Law § 240(1), moreover, is nondelegable … . A general contractor is not considered a statutory agent of the property owner for Labor Law § 240(1) liability purposes, unless that contractor had the authority to supervise and control significant aspects of the construction project, such as safety, at the time of the accident … . …

… Metro was [demonstrated to be] a statutory agent of the property owner on the construction project through the submission of Metro’s admission that it was hired by the property owners as the general contractor on the project, and evidence that Metro undertook general contractor duties by coordinating and supervising the project, and hiring and paying subcontractors… . …

Where, as here, “a claim arises out of alleged defects or dangers in the methods or materials of the work, recovery against the owner or general contractor 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” … . However, ” [t]he right to generally supervise the work, stop the contractor’s work if a safety violation is noted, or to ensure compliance with safety regulations and contract specifications is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200 or for common-law negligence'” … . Sanchez v Metro Bldrs. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 00957, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

LABOR LAW (GENERAL CONTRACTOR, SUBTLE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) VERSUS A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION)/NEGLIGENCE (GENERAL CONTRACTOR, SUBTLE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) VERSUS A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION)/GENERAL CONTRACTOR (SUBTLE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) VERSUS A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION)

 

You might also like
Language of a Guaranty Must Be Strictly Construed
DEFENDANT OPENED THE DRIVER’S-SIDE DOOR OF HIS PARKED CAR WITHOUT MAKING SURE IT WAS SAFE TO DO SO, A VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, AND PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO AVOID STRIKING DEFENDANT’S CAR; PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY AND THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
GOVERNOR HAD THE AUTHORITY TO CANCEL THE SPECIAL ELECTION FOR QUEENS BOROUGH PRESIDENT IN RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF RECOVERED FROM THE OTHER DRIVER AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE LIMIT OF PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTARY UNINSURED/UNDERINSURED MOTORISTS (SUM) COVERAGE, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY FURTHER RECOVERY.
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE IGNORED THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THE BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISSOLVED THE CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
IN PERHAPS THE FIRST APPELLATE-JUSTICE REVIEW OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER UNDER THE NEW PROVISIONS OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 245.70, JUSTICE SCHEINKMAN FOUND THE PEOPLE DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY WITHHOLDING FROM THE DEFENSE THE IDENTITIES OF WITNESSES IN THIS RAPE/MURDER CASE (SECOND DEPT).
LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH STANDING; PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 INSUFFICIENT; OUT OF STATE AFFIDAVIT LACKED A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY; NEITHER PLAINTIFF NOR DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY SUFFERED WHILE PLAINTIFF WAS DOING WHAT HE WAS HIRED TO DO–REPAIR AN ELEVATOR; ISSUE CONSIDERED EVEN THOUGH RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL; IN ADDITION, DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY (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

DEFENDANT FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY ADDRESS ALL THEORIES OF RECOVERY ALLEGED IN... FAILURE TO ADDRESS EVERY ELEMENT OF THE THEORIES OF RECOVERY ALLEGED IN THE...