You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS ACTED AS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR, THEY DID...

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS ACTED AS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR, THEY DID NOT SUPERVISE OR CONTROL ANY OF THE WORK, HOMEOWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the homeowners’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6) and 200 causes of action should have been granted. Although the homeowners acted as a general contractor, they did not supervise or control any of the work:

As the owners of a one-family dwelling who contracted for but did not direct or control the work, defendants are exempt from liability under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 … . “Whether an owner’s conduct amounts to directing or controlling the work depends upon the degree of supervision exercised over the method and manner in which the work is performed” … . Here, although defendants acted as general contractors on the construction of their home by obtaining the necessary permits, purchasing roofing materials, and hiring contractors to perform the construction work, defendants met their initial burden of demonstrating that they did not supervise or control the method or manner of plaintiff’s work … . …

“Where[, as here,] the alleged defect or dangerous condition arises from the 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” … . Bund v Higgins, 2018 NY Slip Op 04897, Fourth Dept 6-29-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS ACTED AS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR, THEY DID NOT SUPERVISE OR CONTROL ANY OF THE WORK, HOMEOWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))/HOMEOWNERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT HOMEOWNERS ACTED AS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR, THEY DID NOT SUPERVISE OR CONTROL ANY OF THE WORK, HOMEOWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFFS’ BATTERY AND MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS PAPERS, WHICH INCLUDED PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY, DEMONSTRATED TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT (FOURTH DEPT)
INITIAL ACCIDENT FURNISHED A CONDITION FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ACCIDENT WHICH INJURED PLAINTIFF, BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE SUBSEQUENT ACCIDENT 4TH DEPT.
E-Mail Service to Defendant Living in Iran Deemed Valid
PROFESSIONAL WRESTLER ASSUMED RISK OF INJURY WHEN JUMPING FROM THE ROPES INTO THE RING.
CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE RENDERED THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).
POLICE OFFICER’S CAUSES OF ACTION FOR DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED THE MOTION TO DISMISS.
Co-Executor Can Object to Final Accounting Solely By Virtue of the Executor’s Fiduciary Duty to the Estate 
CONCLUSORY ALLEGATIONS THAT THE LANDLORD WAS AN OWNER OF OR A PARTNER IN THE BUSINESS WHICH LEASED THE PREMISES WHERE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS INJURED SHOULD NOT HAVE SURVIVED THE MOTION TO DISMISS.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

A PARTNERSHIP CANNOT OPERATE THROUGH AN EXISTING CORPORATE STRUCTURE (FOURTH... DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OBJECT TO THE COURT’S FAILURE TO INSTRUCT THE...