You are here: / / TREE CUTTING NOT COVERED, PILE OF DEBRIS NOT A STRUCTURE, OUT OF POSSESSION...
,

TREE CUTTING NOT COVERED, PILE OF DEBRIS NOT A STRUCTURE, OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200.

The Second Department, in the course of a decision addressing the exclusivity of a Workers’ Compensation recovery and Labor Law 240(1), 241(6) and 200 causes of action, noted that tree cutting was not covered under Labor Law 240(1) and a pile of debris was not a structure within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6). The court further noted that defendant (LLC), as an out of possession landlord, was not liable under Labor Law 200 for either the manner in which work is done or a dangerous condition:

The Supreme Court … properly granted that branch of the respondents’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) insofar as asserted against the LLC, as tree cutting and removal are not activities covered by those statutory provisions … , and the evidence established, as a matter of law, that the mound of old tennis court clay, sand, rocks, and other construction debris was not a “structure” under the Labor Law … . Moreover, the respondents established, prima facie, that the tree cutting and removal was ” routine maintenance outside of a construction or renovation context'” … . …

The Supreme Court also properly granted that branch of the respondents’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence insofar as asserted against the LLC. “Labor Law § 200 is a codification of a property owner’s common-law duty to provide workers at a site with a reasonably safe place to work” … . To the extent that the plaintiff’s claims are based on the manner in which the work was performed, the respondents established, prima facie, that the LLC did not have authority to supervise or control the means and method of the work … . Likewise, to the extent the plaintiff’s claims were based on a dangerous condition on the premises, by presenting the lease between the LLC and the camp, the respondents also established, prima facie, that the LLC, as an out-of-possession landlord, was not responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries … . The LLC relinquished control of the subject property to the camp and placed all responsibility for landscaping and maintenance work on the camp … . Although the LLC reserved a right of entry under the lease, here, this did not provide a sufficient basis on which to impose liability upon the LLC for injuries caused by a dangerous condition, as the condition did not violate a specific statute, nor was it a significant structural or design defect … . Derosas v Rosmarins Land Holdings, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 02019, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (TREE CUTTING NOT COVERED, PILE OF DEBRIS NOT A STRUCTURE, OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200)/TREE CUTTING (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, TREE CUTTING NOT COVERED, PILE OF DEBRIS NOT A STRUCTURE, OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200)/STRUCTURE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, TREE CUTTING NOT COVERED, PILE OF DEBRIS NOT A STRUCTURE, OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200)/LANDLORD-TENANT (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, TREE CUTTING NOT COVERED, PILE OF DEBRIS NOT A STRUCTURE, OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S INJURY DID NOT INVOLVE THE TYPE OF ELEVATION HAZARD CONTEMPLATED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND DEFENDANTS DID NOT EXERCISE A LEVEL OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL SUFFICIENT TO TRIGGER LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, AFTER A SUBSTANTIAL VERDICT IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, WAS ASSIGNED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO SUE DEFENDANT’S INSURER ALLEGING A BAD FAITH FAILURE TO SETTLE, THE INSURER’S MOTION TO DISMISS WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant’s Refusing to Be Interviewed by the Probation Department Was a Valid Ground for Sentence Enhancement
Variance Properly Granted/Review Criteria Explained
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT FINDING THE APPELLANT IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING MADE A TERRORISTIC THREAT IN VIOLATION OF PENAL LAW 490.20; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF AN INTENT TO INTIMIDATE THE CIVILIAN POPULATION (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RENUNCIATION OF INHERITANCE WAS INVALID.
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF IT HAD THE FINANCIAL ABILITY TO CLOSE ON THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS IMPROPERLY BROUGHT AS AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND PETITION, IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; RATHER IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONVERTED BY DEEMING THE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE A SUMMONS AND THE PETITION A COMPLAINT; MATTER REMITTED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT INJURED ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF... NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT FOR LABOR LAW ACTION AGAINST CITY NOT PREEMPTED...