You are here: / / PLAINTIFF, A HOMEOWNER WHOSE COMPANY HIRED DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR TO WORK...

PLAINTIFF, A HOMEOWNER WHOSE COMPANY HIRED DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR TO WORK AT PLAINTIFF’S HOME, WAS A PROPER PLAINTIFF UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS IN CONTROL OF THE WORK SITE AND HAD BEEN DELEGATED SITE SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was a proper plaintiff pursuant to Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6). Plaintiff owned a single family home and plaintiff’s company hired defendant subcontractor to work on plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff was inspecting defendant’s work when he slipped and fill on oil which allegedly came from defendant’s equipment. In addition, the Second Department determined there were questions of fact whether defendant had control of the work site and was delegated safety responsibilities:

Labor Law § 240(1) requires that persons “employed in,” inter alia, the “alteration” of a building be provided with proper protective devices. Labor Law § 241(6) requires contractors and owners and their agents who are performing excavation work to comply with the provisions of the Industrial Code to protect “the persons employed therein or lawfully frequenting such places.” “Employee” is defined in Labor Law § 2(5) as “a mechanic, workingman or laborer working for another for hire.” A plaintiff who seeks to recover under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) must show that he or she was both permitted to work on a building or structure and was hired by someone … . Those provisions may apply to the president of the general contractor for the project, who is inspecting work performed by subcontractors … . Inspecting the work on behalf of a general contractor is a protected activity covered by these Labor Law provision … . …

Here, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was working alone at the site and the plaintiff was merely on-site to inspect the progress of the work. The plaintiff further claims that he “did not direct or control the work . . . and played no role in implementing safety procedures or taking safety measures,” since safety measures were in the exclusive control of the defendant. Thus, although the defendant does not own the property and did not appear to be acting as a general contractor, there are triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant could be liable under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) on the ground that it had control of the work site and was delegated the duty to enforce safety protocols at the time the accident occurred. Eliassian v G.F. Constr., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 05020, Second Dept 7-5-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW PLAINTIFF, A HOMEOWNER WHOSE COMPANY HIRED DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR TO WORK AT PLAINTIFF’S HOME, WAS A PROPER PLAINTIFF UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS IN CONTROL OF THE WORK SITE AND HAD BEEN DELEGATED SITE SAFETY RESPONSIBILITIES (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS STAIRCASE SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED THE CAUSES OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE STAIRCASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Policy Exclusions Not Affected by Additional Insured Endorsement
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT DECIDED BY DEFAULT CANNOT SUPPORT THE APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, THE ISSUES HAVE NOT BEEN LITIGATED (SECOND DEPT).
A PROPER FOUNDATION WAS NOT PROVIDED FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF SOME BUSINESS RECORDS RELIED ON BY THE REFEREE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE MOTION TO CONFIRM THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
WHEN THE PROPERTY OWNER DIED INTESTATE, THE DECEDENT’S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY PASSED OUTSIDE THE ESTATE TO THE DISTRIBUTEES AS TENANTS IN COMMON; THEREFORE, THE PARTITION ACTION BY ONE OF THE TENANTS IN COMMON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISED ON THE GROUND AN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE HAD BEEN APPOINTED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE “LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM” ESPINAL EXCEPTION APPLIED TO A CONTRACTOR AND WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION ALLEGED TO HAVE CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH THE FLOOR OF THE BUILDING UNDER RENOVATION WHEN HE WENT IN TO GET A TOOL FOR HIS WORK ON AN ADJACENT BUILDING, HE WAS PERFORMING DUTIES ANCILLARY TO THE CONSTRUCTION WORK AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN THE MEDICAL RECORDS WAS NOT ENOUGH TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).
Child Not Yet Born When Father Neglected Siblings Was Properly Found to Be Derivatively Neglected

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

FEE-SHARING AGREEMENT VIOLATED JUDICIARY LAW 491 AND COULD NOT BE ENFORCED BY... COURT EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY WHEN IT VACATED AN ARBITRATION AWARD, COURT DID...