You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ALTERING OR ERECTING A STRUCTURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF...

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ALTERING OR ERECTING A STRUCTURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE METHOD OR MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined plaintiff was not engaged in an activity protected by Labor Law 240 (1) when he was injured and the defendant owner of the property did not supervise or control the manner of plaintiff’s work, requiring dismissal of the Labor Law 200 cause of action as well. The plaintiff worked for a car crushing busing and was standing on a crushed car on a trailer when he was knocked into the air by a piece of heavy equipment:

… [E]ven if we were to agree with plaintiff that the open trailer was a structure as that term is used in Labor Law § 240 (1), the record provides us with no basis to conclude that the activity in which plaintiff was engaged was a protected activity or, as relevant here, that plaintiff was altering or erecting a structure. …

“When an alleged defect or dangerous condition arises from [a] contractor’s methods and the owner exercises no supervisory control over the operation, no liability attaches to the owner under the common law or under Labor Law § 200” … . Lopez v 6071 Enters., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 01372, Third Dept 3-1-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ALTERING OR ERECTING A STRUCTURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE METHOD OR MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))/ALTERING OR ERECTING A STRUCTURE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ALTERING OR ERECTING A STRUCTURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE METHOD OR MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
CLAIMANT WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A CONSULTING COMPANY FOR AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAMS AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
MEDICAL JOURNAL KEPT BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT AFTER SHE WAS INJURED AT THE DIRECTION OF HER ATTORNEY PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, MEDICATION LOG IS NOT PROTECTED (THIRD DEPT).
Substantial Evidence Supported Finding Claimant Was an Employee, Not an Independent Contractor
STATE ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WITH RESPECT TO THE ABSENCE OF A GUIDE RAIL ALONG A HIGHWAY.
Social Services Motion to Be Relieved of Obligation to Make Efforts to Return Child to Father Granted Even Though Neglect Finding Against Mother Only
Supreme Court Should Not Have Treated Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss as Motion for Summary Judgment
Even Though Husband’s Funds Were Deposited in a Joint Account, the Portion of those Funds Used for a Down-Payment on the Marital Residence Was Properly Deemed Husband’s Separate Property; Supreme Court Abused Its Discretion In Ordering the Sale of the Marital Residence—Wife Entitled to Exclusive Possession Until Child Turns 18
THE BOARD’S CONCLUSION, BASED UPON EXPERT TESTIMONY, THAT CLAIMANT’S STROKE WAS CAUSED BY PRE-EXISTING MEDICAL CONDITIONS AND NOT THE WORK CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF THE STROKE WAS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE DISTURBED ON APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE LAWSUIT ALLEGED ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS, WHICH ARE EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE,... QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE PRODUCTS LIABILITY...