You are here: / / DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER...
,

DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE PLAINTIFF OR PLAINTIFF’S CO-WORKER WHO INJURED PLAINTIFF, THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR SUPPLIED THE EQUIPMENT WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF DID NOT GIVE RISE TO LIABILITY ON THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S PART (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, modifying Supreme Court, granted the defendant general contractor’s motion for summary judgment in this common law negligence and Labor Law 200 action. The Fourth Department further found that the plaintiff’s Labor Law 241(6) and Vehicle and Traffic Law 388 causes of action were properly dismissed. Plaintiff worked for the property owner, GTO, and did not work for defendant general contractor. Plaintiff was injured by a GTO  co-worker who was using a piece of equipment owned by the defendant (a skid steer used in landscaping work). The defendant did not exercise supervisory control over the skid steer operator and demonstrated entrusting the skid steer to the co-worker did not constitute negligent entrustment of a dangerous instrument. The plaintiff, a landscaper, was not engaged in construction work within the meaning of Labor Law 241(6) and the skid steer was not operated on a public highway within the meaning of the Vehicle and Traffic Law:

Here, the evidence submitted by defendant established that plaintiff and the coworker were both employed by GTO, not by defendant. They were performing landscaping work in the parking lot of the complex, and were not involved in the construction work that was being performed by defendant. Defendant did not give any instructions to plaintiff and the coworker about what work to perform or how to perform their work, and no one from GTO was required to use the skid steer to perform his or her duties. The coworker chose to use the skid steer to move topsoil, and defendant permitted him to do so for such use. Although we are mindful that there might be circumstances in which a party may be said to exercise control over the manner of work based on the provision of the equipment to be used, we conclude that defendant did not exercise such control in this case … . The fact that defendant allowed a GTO employee to use its equipment to perform work on the grounds did not give defendant supervisory control over the manner in which the landscaping work was being performed by the GTO employees. To the contrary, the record establishes that defendant exercised no supervisory control over the landscaping work that was being performed by plaintiff and the coworker and, thus, defendant cannot be held liable for any injuries that were caused by the manner in which that work was being performed. Calvert v Duggan & Duggan Gen. Contr., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 01841, Fourth Dept 3-16-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE PLAINTIFF OR PLAINTIFF’S CO-WORKER WHO INJURED PLAINTIFF, THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR SUPPLIED THE EQUIPMENT WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF DID NOT GIVE RISE TO LIABILITY ON THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S PART (FOURTH DEPT))/GENERAL CONTRACTOR (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, (DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE PLAINTIFF OR PLAINTIFF’S CO-WORKER WHO INJURED PLAINTIFF, THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR SUPPLIED THE EQUIPMENT WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF DID NOT GIVE RISE TO LIABILITY ON THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S PART (FOURTH DEPT))/VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE PLAINTIFF OR PLAINTIFF’S CO-WORKER WHO INJURED PLAINTIFF, THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR SUPPLIED THE EQUIPMENT WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF DID NOT GIVE RISE TO LIABILITY ON THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S PART (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
GLAZIERS ENROLLED IN AN APPRENTICE PROGRAM SHOULD BE PAID AS APPRENTICES EVEN IF THE WORK FOR WHICH THEY ARE PAID IS NOT IN THE SAME TRADE AS THE APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM.
City’s Annexation of Town Land Was in the Overall Public Interest
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND HER COMPLAINT BY ADDING A BATTERY CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A TEACHER AND A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO THE NEW CAUSES OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
PETITIONER DEMONSTRATED THE CHILD WAS NEVER HARMED AND SHE HAD MADE SERIOUS AND SUCCESSFUL EFFORTS AT REHABILITATION; RE: PETITIONER’S EMPLOYMENT IN THE CHILDCARE FIELD, RESPONDENT NYS OFFICE OF CHILDEN AND FAMILY SERVICES IS PRECLUDED FROM INFORMING ANY PROVIDER OR LICENSING AGENCY THAT PETITIONER IS THE SUBJECT OF A CHILD MALTREATMENT REPORT (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S ONCOMING CAR WHEN DEFENDANT WAS FOUR CAR LENGTHS AWAY, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATION THE TRAFFIC LIGHT WAS YELLOW DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FOURTH DEPT)
THE ARBITRATOR’S DECISION TO OVERLOOK AN INSTANCE OF TARDINESS (ONE MINUTE LATE DUE TO A DISABLED TRAIN BLOCKING TRAFFIC) WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD REQUIRE THE GRIEVANT’S TERMINATION WAS NOT IRRATIONAL AND DID NOT EXCEED THE ARBITRATOR’S ENUMERATED POWERS (FOURTH DEPT).
Trial Court Should Not Have Precluded Expert Testimony Based Upon Failure to Make Timely Disclosures— Rather, the Trial Should Have Been Adjourned
THE NOTE REQUIRED THE APPLICATION OF FLORIDA SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL LAW TO THE “TERMS OF THE DOCUMENTS” BUT SPECIFICALLY CONTEMPLATED A SUIT IN EITHER NEW YORK OR FLORIDA; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE INTERPRETED THE CHOICE OF LAW PROVISIONS TO RULE OUT A NEW YORK LAWSUIT (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

FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO FIND A FOSTER HOME FOR A FAMILY’S... SOPHISTICATED INTERMEDIARY DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS...