You are here: / / CONSTRUCTION MANAGER DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT CONTROL TO BE LIABLE UNDER...

CONSTRUCTION MANAGER DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT CONTROL TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) cause of action against the construction manager was properly dismissed. Plaintiff fell from a ten-foot-high stack of blasting mats. The construction manager demonstrated it did not exercise supervisory control over plaintiff’s work or site safety:

A construction manager of a work site is generally not responsible for injuries under Labor Law § 200, § 240(1), or § 241(6) unless it functions as an agent of the property owner or general contractor in circumstances where it has the ability to control the activity which brought about the injury …  “A party is deemed to be an agent of an owner or general contractor under the Labor Law when it has supervisory control and authority over the work being done where a plaintiff is injured”… . An agent’s liability is limited “to those areas and activities within the scope of the work delegated or, in other words, to the particular agency created” … .

Here, the construction management services contract … provided that the defendants were responsible for coordinating the work relating to the … project, namely liaising with contractors to ensure that the project was completed in accordance with cost, time, safety, and quality control requirements and reporting … . However, the contract did not confer upon the defendants the authority to control the methods used by the contractors, including the plaintiff’s employer, to complete their work. The defendants were authorized only to review and monitor safety programs and requirements and make recommendations, provide direction to contractors regarding corrective action to be taken if an unsafe condition was detected, and stop work only in the event of an emergency. The parties’ deposition testimony also demonstrated that the defendants did not have control or a supervisory role over the plaintiff’s day-to-day work and that they did not assume responsibility for the manner in which that work was conducted. Lamar v Hill Intl., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 06167, Second Dept 8-16-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (CONSTRUCTION MANAGER DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT CONTROL TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT))CONSTRUCTION MANAGER (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, CONSTRUCTION MANAGER DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT CONTROL TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE ABSENCE OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGEDLY SLIPPERY CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
AN INSURER WHO HAS NO DUTY TO DEFEND THE INSUREDS BECAUSE OF LATE NOTIFICATION, IN THE ABSENCE OF A PROVISION IN THE POLICY, MAY NOT RECOVER THE COSTS OF DEFENDING THE ACTION FROM THE INSUREDS AND THE SUCCESSFUL PLAINTIFF IN THE UNDERLYING ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
ONE DEFENDANT BREACHED A CONTRACT; THE OTHER DEFENDANT TORTIOUSLY INTERFERED WITH PLAINTIFF’S PROSPECTIVE BUSINESS RELATIONS; THE JURY AWARDED SEPARATE DAMAGE-AMOUNTS FOR EACH DEFENDANT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD BOTH DEFENDANTS JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR THE COMBINED AMOUNT OF DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT). ​
Lease and Lease Amendment Invalid Even Though Approved by County Legislature—County Charter Required that All Contracts with the County Be Executed by the County Executive—The County Executive Signed the Lease But Not the Lease Amendment (Which Was Integral to the Agreement)—Lease Required All Modifications to Be In Writing, So Signing the Lease Amendment Was Not a “Purely Ministerial Act”—A Municipal Contract Which Does Not Comply with Statutory Requirements or Local Law Is Invalid and Unenforceable
THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED TO PROVE THE BANK’S STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE NOT ACCOMPANIED BY THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND THEREFORE CONSTITUTED INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
Inherent Smoothness of a Floor Is Not an Actionable Defect
Security at Homeless Shelter Is a Governmental Function–City Immune from Suit by Plaintiff Who Was Assaulted at the Shelter/Private Security Company Not Immune/Plaintiff Was a Third-Party Beneficiary of the Contract Between the Department of Homeless Services and the Security Company/Security Company Did Not Demonstrate It Was Free from Negligence and the Assault Was Not Foreseeable
THE BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE MAILING REQUIREMENTS; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT (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

LABOR LAW 240(1) NOT APPLICABLE TO INJURY FROM A PORTION OF A FENCE WHICH FELL... PLAINTIFF’S STEPPING ON AN UNSECURED PLANK HE HAD JUST PLACED, RATHER...