You are here: / / DEFENDANT DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK...

DEFENDANT DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200.

The Second Department determined the masonry contractor, Citnalta, did not exercise sufficient control over plaintiff’s work to be liable under Labor Law 200. Plaintiff, who worked for a subcontractor, was injured when a masonry saw jammed”

Here, Citnalta established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the subject accident was caused by the means and methods of the plaintiff’s work, that the plaintiff’s work was directed and controlled by his employer, and that it had no authority to exercise supervisory control over his work … . The plaintiff’s evidence of Citnalta’s general supervision of the project and overall compliance with safety standards was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition … . Further, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, he failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether his injuries arose from a dangerous or defective premises condition … . Messina v City of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 00640, 2nd Dept 2-1-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTIVE LAW (DEFENDANT DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200)

You might also like
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONFIGURATION AT THE TOP OF THE STAIRS AND THE ABSENCE OF A HANDRAIL WERE NOT DANGEROUS CONDITIONS WHICH PROXIMATELY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S FALL, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT.
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER HE SHOULD BE OFFERED ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT AS AN ELEMENT OF HIS SENTENCE; THE ISSUE SURVIVED DEFENDANT’S GUILTY PLEA (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.
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL ACTION AGAINST THE PORT AUTHORITY, THE APPLICABLE STATUTE PROVIDES THAT THE NOTICE OF CLAIM MUST BE SERVED AT LEAST 60 DAYS BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION (NOT 60 DAYS AFTER THE ACCRUAL OF THE ACTION); THEREFORE THE NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS TIMELY SERVED (SECOND DEPT). ​
ATTORNEY LETTERS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT KNOW SOURCE OF FALLING WOOD WHICH STRUCK HIM, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE, AS MATTER OF LAW, A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240(1).
Factual Question About Whether Family Court Had Jurisdiction Over Visitation Modification Where Supreme Court Originally Ordered Visitation
IN A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, THE REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 NOTICE MUST BE SENT TO THE BORROWER IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE; HERE OTHER NOTICES WERE INCLUDED IN THE ENVELOPE ALONG WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (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

COVERAGE FOR CLAIMS ALLEGING PAYMENT OF INADEQUATE WAGES AND RETALIATION FOR... DOG INJURED PLAINTIFF BY RUNNING AND JUMPING UP ON HER IN PLAY, COMPLAINT PROPERLY...