You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER (1) DEFENDANT WAS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR AGENT...

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER (1) DEFENDANT WAS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR AGENT OF THE OWNER, (2) WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE AND NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION, AND (3) WHETHER THE INJURY WAS THE RESULT OF THE ABSENCE OR FAILURE OF A SAFETY DEVICE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a two-justice partial dissent, determined that there were questions of fact whether defendant BGB was liable under Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) as a general contractor or agent of the owner, and whether BGB was liable under Labor Law 200 because of its control over the work site and notice of the dangerous condition. In addition the Fourth Department determined there was a question of fact whether the lintel over a doorway fell on plaintiff because of the absence of a safety device (Labor Law 240 (1)). The dissent argued that no safety device was required as a matter of law. With respect to whether BGB was a general contractor or agent of the owner, and whether BGB could be liable under Labor Law 200, the court wrote:

“An entity is a contractor within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) if it had the power to enforce safety standards and choose responsible subcontractors . . . , and an entity is a general contractor if, in addition thereto, it was responsible for coordinating and supervising the . . . project” … . In addition, an entity that serves as “a construction manager may be vicariously liable as an agent of the property owner . . . where the manager had the ability to control the activity which brought about the injury’ “… . Here, BGB’s own submissions raise triable issues of fact whether BGB had the authority to supervise or control the injury-producing work, and thus whether it may be held liable as a general contractor or an agent of the owner … .

​

With regard to plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action against BGB, we conclude that, contrary to BGB’s contention on its cross appeal, it failed to eliminate triable issues of fact whether it had ” control over the work site and actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition’ ” that allegedly caused plaintiff’s injuries … . Robinson v Spragues Wash. Sq., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 01007, Fourth Dept 2-9-18

LABOR LAW -CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR AGENT OF THE OWNER, WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE AND NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION, AND WHETHER THE INJURY WAS THE RESULT OF THE ABSENCE OR FAILURE OF A SAFETY DEVICE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/GENERAL CONTRACT (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR AGENT OF THE OWNER, WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE AND NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION, AND WHETHER THE INJURY WAS THE RESULT OF THE ABSENCE OR FAILURE OF A SAFETY DEVICE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/OWNER, AGENT OF (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR AGENT OF THE OWNER, WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE AND NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION, AND WHETHER THE INJURY WAS THE RESULT OF THE ABSENCE OR FAILURE OF A SAFETY DEVICE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))/FALLING OBJECTS LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR AGENT OF THE OWNER, WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE AND NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION, AND WHETHER THE INJURY WAS THE RESULT OF THE ABSENCE OR FAILURE OF A SAFETY DEVICE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
Supreme Court Should Determine Only the Threshold Issue of Whether a Matter Is Arbitrable as Encompassed by the General Subject Matter of the Collective Bargaining Agreement Without Considering the Merits of the Underlying Claim (Which Should Be Left to the Arbitrator)
AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP AND A FOOT CHASE DEFENDANT WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY; NOTHING THE DEPUTY HAD SEEN AT THAT POINT PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE DEFENDANT’S CAR; AFTER OPENING THE CAR DOOR AND SMELLING MARIJUANA THE DEPUTY CONDUCTED A WARRANTLESS SEARCH; THE DRUGS AND WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT)
THE MAJORITY HELD THE INSTALLATION OF AN AIR TANK ON A FLATBED TRAILER WAS NOT A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1); THE DISSENT ARGUED THE TRAILER WAS A “STRUCTURE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE STATUTE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW BY WALKING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET AT THE TIME OF THE STREET STOP; THEREFORE THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGALITY OF THE POLICE CONDUCT AND THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION WAS CREATED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CITY COMPLETED WORK, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
HERE THE EVIDENCE WAS PURELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL; DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A CIRCUMSTANTIAL-EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED ON THE MURDER AND ATTEMPTED MURDER CHARGES (FOURTH DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT, DESPITE BEING IN CUSTODY AT THE TIME, VALIDLY CONSENTED TO THE SEARCH OF THE PREMISES AND A DUFFEL BAG FOUND IN A CLOSET.
SPECTATOR’S CLAIM JURORS REFERRED TO DEFENDANT AS A ‘SCUMBAG’ WAS NOT CREDIBLE, TRIAL JUDGE PROPERLY DECIDED A JUROR-BIAS (BUFORD) HEARING WAS NOT REQUIRED (FOURTH 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

NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH D... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BEGINNING SAILOR ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY WHEN TRYING...