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
Policy Exclusions Not Affected by Additional Insured Endorsement
DEFENDANT PROPERLY REJECTED THE MACHINES AS NONCONFORMING GOODS, PLAINTIFF DID NOT CURE THE NONCONFORMITY, AND DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES AND LOST PROFITS (SECOND DEPT). ​
PROOF OF MAILING OF THE REQUIRED NOTICE DEFICIENT, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE MODIFIED THE PARENTAL ACCESS PROVISIONS OF THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
BOARDING UP A VACANT HOUSE WAS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) (SECOND DEPT).
LESSEE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE LAUNDRY ROOM COULD BE LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DEFECTIVE WASHING MACHINE, LESSEE DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER IT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECT, DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT.
THE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF THE SLIP AND FALL, RENDERING THE FILING OF THE CLAIM UNTIMELY (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...