You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6)...

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s (Pumpcrete’s) motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action should have been granted, but a question of fact precluded summary judgment in favor of Pumpcrete on the common law negligence cause of action:

Plaintiff was injured while guiding a concrete pump hose that was attached to a truck owned and operated by defendant Pumpcrete Corporation (Pumpcrete). An obstruction formed in the pump hose, causing wet concrete to suddenly be ejected from the hose and knocking plaintiff off of the scaffolding upon which he was standing. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was working for the general contractor, which had hired Pumpcrete to supply the concrete pumping equipment. …

With respect to the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action … , we note that, “while under that statute owners and general contractors are generally absolutely liable for statutory violations . . . , other parties may be liable under th[at] statute[ ] only if they are acting as the agents of the owner or general contractor by virtue of the fact that they had been given the authority to supervise and control the work being performed at the time of the injury” … . Pumpcrete satisfied its initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that it was not an agent of the owner or general contractor by submitting deposition testimony from plaintiff and the Pumpcrete pump operator that Pumpcrete lacked authority to supervise or control plaintiff’s work, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in response … . Rohr v Dewald, 2018 NY Slip Op 04160, Fourth Dept 6-8-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
Defendant’s Attorney Not Ineffective for Failing to Make a Motion to Suppress—Nature of a Motion Which, If Not Made, Would Constitute Ineffective Assistance Addressed by the Majority and the Dissent
THE LEASE REQUIRED THE OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD TO REPAIR STRUCTURAL DEFECTS IN THE ROOF AND WALLS; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER WATER ENTERED THE PREMISES THROUGH DEFECTS IN THE ROOF AND WALLS CAUSING THE ALLEGED DANGEROUS CONDITION, A CRACK IN THE FLOOR WHICH ALLEGEDLY CONTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF’S INJURY (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE ARGUMENT THAT THE INDICTMENT WAS DUPLICITOUS WAS PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, THE ISSUE WAS NOT RULED ON BY COUNTY COURT AND THEREFORE CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL; MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING (FOURTH DEPT).
AT THE TIME DEFENDANT RAN AS THE POLICE APPROACHED THERE WAS NO INDICATION THE POLICE WERE GOING TO CITE DEFENDANT FOR TRESPASS OR VIOLATION OF AN OPEN-CONTAINER LAW; DEFENDANT THEREFORE COULD NOT HAVE INTENDED TO OBSTRUCT GOVERNMENTAL ADMINISTRATION BY RUNNING; DEFENDANT’S RUNNING DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST; THE PEOPLE’S ALTERNATIVE PROBABLE CAUSE ARGUMENT (TRESPASS AND OPEN-CONTAINER VIOLATION), ALTHOUGH PRESENTED TO THE SUPPRESSION COURT, WAS NOT RULED ON AND THEREFORE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).
TRIAL EVIDENCE RENDERED THE SINGLE-COUNT INDICTMENT DUPLICITOUS REQUIRING REVERSAL (FOURTH DEPT).
Duty to Defend
OWNER OF PROPERTY WHERE THE EMPLOYEE SLIPPED AND FELL WAS NOT AN ADDITIONAL INSURED UNDER THE EMPLOYER’S POLICY, EMPLOYER FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE SLIP AND FALL BUT DID NOT PROXIMATELY CAUSE THE SLIP AND FALL (FOURTH DEPT).
WILL THAT CANNOT BE FOUND IS PRESUMED REVOKED, HERE PETITIONER DID NOT REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF REVOCATION, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SAFETY DEVICES FOR LIFTING HEAVY MOTOR WERE AVAILABLE,... LOCAL LAWS CONCERNING HEALTH BENEFITS FOR RETIRED TOWN EMPLOYEES WHICH WERE...