You are here: / / LABOR LAW CLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE...

LABOR LAW CLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR, DID NOT CONTROL THE MANNER OF WORK, DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION.

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200 causes of action against Dynatec were properly dismissed. Dynatec demonstrated it was not an agent of the owner or contractor, did not control the manner of the work, did not create the dangerous condition, and did not have notice of the dangerous condition. Apparently plaintiff was injured twice, once falling from a ladder and a second time falling down stairs:

Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) insofar as asserted against it. “Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) apply to owners, contractors, and their agents” … . ” A party is deemed to be an agent of an owner or general contractor under the Labor Law when it has supervisory control and authority over the work being done where a plaintiff is injured'” … . “It is not a defendant’s title that is determinative, but the amount of control or supervision exercised” … .

Here, Dynatec established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action insofar as asserted against it by demonstrating that it lacked the authority to supervise or control the plaintiff’s work … . Specifically, Dynatec offered evidence indicating that its role at the worksite was to ensure compliance with design plans through weekly visits lasting no more than three hours. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . …

Dynatec established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of actions insofar as asserted against it by submitting evidence demonstrating that it did not control the methods or materials of the plaintiff’s work, did not create the dangerous conditions that allegedly caused the accidents, and did not have actual or constructive notice of the dangerous conditions … . Vazquez v Humboldt Seigle Lofts, LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 08225, 2nd Dept 12-7-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (LABOR LAW CLAIMS PROPERLY DISMISSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER OR CONTRACTOR, DID NOT CONTROL THE MANNER OF WORK, DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, AND DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION)

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION OF ATTEMPTED ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF 30 POINTS UNDER RISK FACTOR 9; DEFENDANT WAS THEREFORE A PRESUMPTIVE LEVEL ONE; HAD THE PEOPLE KNOWN DEFENDANT WAS PRESUMPTIVE LEVEL ONE THEY WOULD HAVE SOUGHT AN UPWARD DEPARTURE; MATTER REMITTED FOR A NEW DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT).
RETURN OF THE CHILDREN TO MOTHER AFTER A TEMPORARY REMOVAL WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A SOUND AND SUBSTANTIAL BASIS (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF PLACED THE BOTTOM OF THE LADDER ON SMALL LANDSCAPING ROCKS WHICH GAVE WAY CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO FALL; DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS FALL AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A DEFENSE; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORDS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SLANTED FLOOR OF THE IN-GROUND POOL WAS NOT A DANGEROUS CONDITION AND THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE WAY THE POOL WAS BUILT, THE LANDLORDS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DIVING ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
15-YEAR PERIOD DURING WHICH DEFENDANT DID NOT REOFFEND IS A GROUND FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IN SETTING THE SORA RISK LEVEL.
(HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW THE LEAD DETECTIVE TO EXPLAIN THE ROLES PLAYED BY PERSONS RECORDED BY THE WIRETAPS, AND (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ADMIT THE WIRETAP ORDERS INTO EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PARTIES TO EQUALLY SHARE THE COSTS OF FATHER’S SUPERVISED VISITATION WITHOUT EVALUATING THE PARTIES’ FINANCES (SECOND DEPT).
PROSECUTOR ACTED AS AN UNSWORN WITNESS DURING SUMMATION, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT MANDATED A NEW 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

SPECIFICITY REQUIRED FOR A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION IS TEMPERED WHEN THE DETAILS... PRISON SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT RECORDS PROPERLY TURNED OVER TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL...