You are here: / / DEFENDANTS DID NOT CONTROL THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND PLAINTIFF...

DEFENDANTS DID NOT CONTROL THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE, NOT CONSTRUCTION. LABOR LAW 200 AND 240(1) CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED.

The Second Department determined the Labor Law 200 and 240(1) causes of action were properly dismissed. Plaintiff fell from a ladder attached to the side of a tanker truck and alleged the fall was caused by the design of the ladder and the absence of safety device. Because the Labor Law 200 cause of action was based upon the manner in which the work was performed, the fact that defendants did not control the manner of plaintiff’s work entitled defendants to summary judgment. The Labor Law 240(1) cause of action was properly dismissed because plaintiff was engaged in routine maintenance, not construction, demolition, etc.:

“When the methods or materials of the work are at issue, recovery against the owner or general contractor cannot be had . . . unless it is shown that the party to be charged had the authority to supervise or control the performance of 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 … . …

The … defendants … established, prima facie, that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) causes of action asserted against each of them by showing that the plaintiff’s work did not constitute erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning, or pointing of a building or structure within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Kearney v Dynegy, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 05209, 2nd Dept 6-28-17

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER IS GENERALLY NOT LIABLE FOR INJURIES TO A WORKER UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 241(6), HERE THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER, BY CONTRACT, WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SAFETY AT THE WORKSITE AND SUPERVISED THE WORK; THEREFORE THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER WAS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND POTENTIALLY LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS GROUNDWATER POLLUTION CASE, THE POLLUTION EXCLUSION IN THE INSURERS’ POLICIES APPLIED AND THE INSURERS ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE INSURED OIL COMPANY (SECOND DEPT).
Where It Is Possible Jurors Relied On an Illegal Ground a General Verdict Must Be Set Aside, Even If Alternative Legal Grounds Were Provided to the Jury
A JUDGMENT SUBMITTED AFTER THE 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY 22 NYCRR 202.48 (WHERE THE DECISION DIRECTS SUBMISSION OF THE JUDGMENT) CAN BE ACCEPTED BY THE COURT IN THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION (SECOND DEPT).
Action Properly Brought by Third Party Beneficiary of Indemnity Agreement
Evidence which Should Have Been Presented In the People’s Direct Case Should Not Have Been Allowed in Rebuttal
DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION PROPERLY GRANTED, ELEMENTS OF PRE-AMENDMENT PROOF OF A CLAIM OF RIGHT APPLIED TO THE DISPUTED PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CANCEL AND DISCHARGE THE MORTGAGE BASED ON THE EXPIRATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NO GROUNDS FOR IMPOSING AN EQUITABLE MORTGAGE IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF (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

THE $2,000,000 REPLACEMENT INSURANCE POLICY WAS CANCELLED FOR NON-PAYMENT JUST... EXPOSED TREE ROOT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS....