You are here: / / PRIME CONTRACTOR DID NOT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DID...

PRIME CONTRACTOR DID NOT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DID NOT SUPERVISE PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND DID NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THE WORKSITE, ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor law 241 (6), 200 and common law negligence action should have been granted. Plaintiff was struck by a car while working in the median of a highway. Defendant, Oakgrove, was a prime contractor with whom the injured plaintiff’s employer did not contract. And Oakgrove had no supervisory control over the plaintiff or the worksite:

​

“The owner or general contractor is not synonymous with the prime contractor . . . Generally speaking, the prime contractor for general construction (especially in State construction projects) has no authority over the other prime contractors . . . unless the prime contractor is delegated work in such a manner that it stands in the shoes of the owner or general contractor with the authority to supervise and control the work” … .

Here, Oakgrove and Foit-Albert were both prime contractors, and plaintiff’s employer contracted only with Foit-Albert. Oakgrove did not supervise or instruct plaintiff. Rather, plaintiff reported to a supervisor at Foit-Albert. Oakgrove established as a matter of law that it had no control over plaintiff or the work he was performing, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . …

​

… Oakgrove … established that it did not have control over the work site at the time of plaintiff’s accident …. Thus, the court should have dismissed the Labor Law § 200 claim and common-law negligence cause of action … . Knab v Robertson, 2017 NY Slip Op 07822, Fourth Department 11-9-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PRIME CONTRACTOR DID NOT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DID NOT SUPERVISE PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND DID NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THE WORKSITE, ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/PRIME CONTRACTOR (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PRIME CONTRACTOR DID NOT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DID NOT SUPERVISE PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND DID NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THE WORKSITE, ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PRIME CONTRACTOR DID NOT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DID NOT SUPERVISE PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND DID NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THE WORKSITE, ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))

/by
You might also like
PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S FALL FROM HER BED IN A NURSING HOME WAS CAUSED BY DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A JUROR WHO FELT POLICE OFFICERS WOULD NOT LIE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; STATEMENTS MADE UNDER CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION IN DEFENDANT’S HOME SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; STATEMENTS MADE AFTER DEFENDANT INVOKED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERLY ASSESSED 80 POINTS FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IN THIS SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) RISK LEVEL PROCEEDING, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, DETERMINATION REVERSED HOWEVER BECAUSE COUNTY COURT DID NOT CONSIDER DOWNWARD DEPARTURE REQUEST (FOURTH DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SIGN ON THE SIDEWALK OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRESENCE OF THE SIGN ON THE SIDEWALK (FOURTH DEPT).
THE TOWN’S APPROVAL OF CHANGES TO A WIND-TURBINE PROJECT WITHOUT A SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SEIS) WAS NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (FOURTH DEPT).
Liability for Providing Alcohol to Under-Age Purchaser Only Triggered by Injury Caused by the Purchaser.
ALTHOUGH THE MONTHLY MORTGAGE PAYMENTS STOPPED IN 2008, THE DEBT WAS NEVER ACCELERATED UNTIL THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS BROUGHT IN 2015, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).
Defendant Failed to Meet Its Burden on Its Summary Judgment Motion—Not Enough to Point to Deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Proof

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SUPREME COURT ERRED IN ORDERING DISCLOSURE OF SOME OF THE INSURER’S RECORDS... INJURY WHILE LIFTING A HEAVY OBJECT FROM A HORIZONTAL TO A VERTICAL POSITION...