You are here: / / SAFETY CONSULTANT DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER WORKSITE TO...

SAFETY CONSULTANT DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER WORKSITE TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) OR 200–CRITERIA EXPLAINED.

The Second Department determined a worksite “safety consultant” (PSS) did not exercise sufficient supervisory control to be held liable under the Labor Law. Plaintiff was injured when he fell through a plywood covered hole in a ramp. The decision has detailed recitations of the black letter law requirements for Labor law 240(1), 241 (6) and 200 causes of action:

PSS submitted evidence demonstrating that its role at the work site was only one of general supervision, and that it did not have the authority to control the work performed or the safety precautions taken by the general contractor and the plaintiff’s employer, which is insufficient to impose liability on a safety consultant under the Labor Law … .

“To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 for injuries arising from the manner in which work is performed, a defendant must have authority to exercise supervision and control over 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'” … . ” [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'” … . Where a plaintiff’s injuries arise not from the manner in which the work was performed, but from a dangerous condition on the premises, a contractor may be liable under Labor Law § 200 ” only if it had control over the work site and either created the dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it'” … . Moreover, an entity is not deemed to be an agent of an owner or contractor for purposes of Labor Law § 200 if it “lacked sufficient control over the premises and the activity that brought about the injury” … . Marquez v L & M Dev. Partners, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 05631, 2nnd Dept 7-27-16

 

LABOR LAW (SAFETY CONSULTANT DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER WORKSITE TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) OR 200–CRITERIA EXPLAINED)/SAFETY CONSULTANT (LABOR LAW, (SAFETY CONSULTANT DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER WORKSITE TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) OR 200–CRITERIA EXPLAINED)

You might also like
THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DEFICIENT; THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE BANK’S AFFIDAVIT RENDERED THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
​THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES (ACS) RELIED SOLELY ON PRIOR NEGLECT FINDINGS FROM 2007 AND 2009 TO PROVE DERIVATIVE NEGLECT; NEGLECT FINDING REVERSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (RPTL), NOT THE CPLR, CONTROLS THE COMMENCEMENT OF A REAL PROPERTY TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY DENYING THE APPLICATION FOR AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ALLEGING VIOLATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT AS AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
THE MAJORITY HELD THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S BACKPACK WAS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE IT OCCURRED CLOSE IN TIME TO DEFENDANT’S ARREST ON THE STREET AND WAS JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES; THE DISSENT ARGUED THERE WAS NO PROOF THE BACKPACK WAS WITHIN THE GRABBABLE AREA AND NO PROOF OF EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF-STUDENT WAS WATCHING FOOTBALL PRACTICE FROM THE SIDELINES WHEN A BLOCKING SLED, PUSHED BY SEVERAL PLAYERS, VEERED OFF TO THE SIDE AND RAN OVER PLAINTIFF’S FOOT, THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE APPLIES TO SPECTATORS, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING RE: WHETHER HIS CONVICTION SHOULD BE VACATED; DEFENDANT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED HE WAS NOT ADVISED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA, AND HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HE BEEN AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CRITERIA FOR REVEIW OF A CUSTODY DETERMINATION CONCISELY EXPLAINED. NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, CITY IMMUNE FROM S...