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
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO INFORM HIM OF THE IMMIGRATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILITY PLEA AND FOR FAILING TO NEGOTIATE A PLEA TO AN OFFENSE WHICH DID NOT MANDATE DEPORTATION (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH NO ESPINAL FACTORS WERE ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ORAL CONTRACT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW ENTIRELY REPLACED THE PROPERTY OWNER’S DUTY, AND WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A RECURRENT ICY CONDITION, PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
EXPERT’S OPINION THAT DEFENDANT’S IMPROPER INSTALLATION OF A SIDEWALK/MANHOLE CAUSED THE SIDEWALK HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD; THE DEFENSE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SORA Determination Made at Sentencing (Which Included Incarceration) Invalid
MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO ASSERT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE, MADE SIX YEARS AFTER INITIAL ANSWER WAS SERVED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.
FATHER TOLD THE COURT HE HAD RETAINED COUNSEL BUT COUNSEL COULD NOT ATTEND THE PETITION-TO-RELOCATE HEARING THAT DAY, COURT WENT AHEAD WITH THE HEARING, FATHER DEPRIVED OF HIS STATUTORY RIGHT TO COUNSEL.
Requirements for Indefinite Tolling of 30-Day Period During Which a No-Fault Carrier Must Determine Whether to Pay or Deny a Claim Explained
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE OF PLAINTIFF-STUDENT IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE (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

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....