You are here: / / CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PARTY IS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER...

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PARTY IS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER IN LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTIONS EXPLAINED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A LADDER, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined Supreme Court should not have determined defendant (Rose Associates) was not a statutory agent of the owner in this Labor Law 240 (1) and 24 1 (6) action, explaining the correct criteria. In addition Supreme Court should not have denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action, which was based upon the allegation the ladder plaintiff was on moved:

The motion court erred in determining that Rose Associates is not an agent of defendant owner Continental Towers Condominium. Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) impose absolute liability on owners, contractors, and their agents for a statutory violation resulting in injury, regardless of whether they directed or controlled the work … . Thus…  the test of whether a defendant is a statutory agent subject to liability under those sections is not whether it actually supervised the work, but whether it had the authority to do so … . …

… [T]he court should have granted plaintiff’s cross motion, as the evidence establishes that plaintiff slipped or fell from an unsecured ladder upon which he was working because it moved … . The testimony of plaintiff’s coworker that plaintiff stated he slipped was “not inconsistent with plaintiff’s version that he slipped after the ladder moved” … . Moreover, defendants’ expert affidavits asserting that no force acted upon the ladder that could have caused it to move were speculative. Merino v Continental Towers Condominium, 2018 NY Slip Op 01549, First Dept 3-8-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PARTY IS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER IN LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTIONS EXPLAINED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A LADDER, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/STATUTORY AGENT (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PARTY IS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE OWNER IN LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) ACTIONS EXPLAINED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A LADDER, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A LADDER, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
Court Must Make a Youthful Offender Determination Even When Defendant Waives It
UNSIGNED FORM INSUFFICIENT TO MAKE RESPONDENT THE BENEFICIARY OF DECEDENT’S IRA (FIRST DEPT).
APPEAL WAIVER INVALID, FLAWED ON-THE-RECORD EXPLANATION OF WAIVED RIGHTS NOT REMEDIED BY SIGNED WRITTEN WAIVER.
Subcontractor Who Is Not Vicariously Liable for the Acts or Omissions of Its Subcontractors Under Labor Law 200 May Be Vicariously Liable for those Acts or Omissions Under Labor Law 241 (6)
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PROPERLY SERVED VALID SUBPOENAS ON THE VIRTUAL CURRENCY COMPANIES PURSUANT TO GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 352 (MARTIN ACT) IN A FRAUD INVESTIGATION; ONCE THE MOTIONS TO VACATE OR MODIFY THE EX PARTE ORDER RE: THE ISSUANCE OF THE SUBPOENAS WAS DETERMINED, THE COURT NO LONGER HAD ANY AUTHORITY OVER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S INVESTIGATION; THEREFORE THE VIRTUAL CURRENCY COMPANIES’ SUBSEQUENT MOTION TO DISMISS WAS NOT PROPERLY BEFORE SUPREME COURT OR THE APPELLATE DIVISION (FIRST DEPT).
EXPERT EVIDENCE THAT A SAFETY DEVICE WAS NOT NECESSARY IN THIS FALLING OBJECTS CASE DID NOT CREATE A QUESTION OF FACT, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT CONVICTION, DESPITE LOSS OF CONSCIOUSNESS, DIZZINESS AND INCONSISTENCIES.
THE EXAMINATION UNDER OATH (EUO) WAS SCHEDULED BEFORE THE INSURER RECEIVED A CLAIM FORM; THEREFORE THE INSURER DID NOT HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 TO BE ENTITLED TO A DEFAULT DECLARATORY JUDGMENT; THE UNDERLYING TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN STAGED AND CLAIMANT FAILED TO APPEAR AT SCHEDULED EOU’S (FIRST 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

EVIDENCE PETITIONER HAD ACCESS TO THE AREA WHERE THE CONTRABAND WAS FOUND WAS... PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE...