You are here: / / ACCIDENT DID NOT INVOLVE AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTORS...

ACCIDENT DID NOT INVOLVE AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTORS DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OF THE PLAINTIFF, THE AREA OR THE WORK, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been dismissed because the accident, tripping over a pile of sand on ground level, did not involve an elevation-related risk. The Labor Law 241 (6) and 200 causes of  action should have been dismissed because the defendants (subcontractors USRC and A-Deck) did not exercise control over the plaintiff, the area or the work:

… [T]he Labor Law § 241(6) claim should be dismissed because neither USRC nor A-Deck may be held liable under that statute. “Labor Law § 241(6) does not automatically apply to all subcontractors on a site or in the chain of command'” … . “Rather, for liability under the statute to attach to a defendant, a plaintiff must show that the defendant exercised control either over the plaintiff, the specific work area involved or the work that gave rise to the injury” … . Here, there is no evidence that either USRC or A-Deck exercised any control over the plaintiff, the specific work area involved or the work that gave rise to plaintiff’s injury.

The Labor Law § 200 claim should also be dismissed as neither USRC nor A-Deck may be held liable under that statute. “Section 200 of the Labor Law merely codified the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or general contractor to provide construction site workmen with a safe place to work” … . “An implicit precondition to this duty to provide a safe place to work is that the party charged with that responsibility have the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury to enable it to avoid or correct an unsafe condition”  … . Here, there is no evidence that either USRC or A-Deck had the authority to control the activity that brought about plaintiff’s injury. Adagio v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 03744,  First Dept 5-24-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (ACCIDENT DID NOT INVOLVE AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTORS DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OF THE PLAINTIFF, THE AREA OR THE WORK, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/SUBCONTRACTORS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ACCIDENT DID NOT INVOLVE AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTORS DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OF THE PLAINTIFF, THE AREA OR THE WORK, DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, VACATE ITS DECISION AND REINSTATE A 2014 JUDGMENT WHERE NO REQUEST THAT COULD FORM THE BASIS OF THAT ACTION WAS MADE IN THE MOTION PAPERS (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S SILENCE COUPLED WITH GOING FORWARD TO ENTER THE LEASE CONSTITUTED ACCEPTANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE BROKER’S COUNTEROFFER FOR THE BROKERAGE FEE (SECOND DEPT).
THE LEVEL THREE STREET STOP WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE VAGUE DESCRIPTION OF A ROBBERY SUSPECT WHICH DEFENDANT DID NOT MATCH; THAT THE DEFENDANT HID HIS FACE AND WALKED QUICKLY WHEN THE POLICE FOLLOWED HIM DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH THE REQUISITE REASONABLE SUSPICION (FIRST DEPT).
SHAREHOLDERS’ DERIVATIVE ACTION IS EQUITABLE IN NATURE, MOTION TO STRIKE DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
REPORT OF FIRE MARSHAL, WHO HAD NO INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF HIS INVESTIGATION INTO THE CAUSE OF THE FIRE, WAS ADMISSIBLE PURSUANT TO THE BUSINESS RECORD EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
THE JURY’S FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS NEGLIGENT BUT THAT DEFENDANT WAS 100% RESPONSIBLE WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; ALLOWING PLAINTIFF’S DOCTOR TO TESTIFY DEFENDANT’S DOCTOR WAS HIRED BY AN INSURANCE COMPANY, WITHOUT GIVING A CURATIVE INSTRUCTION, WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (FIRST DEPT).
NO NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIRED FOR RETALIATORY TERMINATION CLAIM PURSUANT TO CIVIL SERVICES LAW 75-b.
IN THIS NO-FAULT INSURANCE CASE, THE INSURER REQUESTED AN EXAMINATION UNDER OATH (EUO) WITHOUT AFFORDING THE MEDICAL PROVIDER SPECIFIC, OBJECTIVE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO THE INSURER (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

THE CASE INVOLVES A NEW JERSEY INSURANCE POLICY ISSUED TO A NEW JERSEY COMPANY... BUILDING INSPECTION REPORT STATED STAIRWAY WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WAS IN NEED...