You are here: / / PLAINTIFF PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION...

PLAINTIFF PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A LADDER, DEFENDANT WAS APPARENTLY LIABLE AS AN AGENT OF THE OWNER WITH AUTHORITY OVER SAFETY MEASURES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action stemming from a fall from a ladder which moved for no apparent reason. The court determined that the defendant, Arrow, which had contracted with plaintiff’s employer, was liable as an agent of the owner or general contractor because of its supervisory control and authority to enforce safety standards:

Labor Law § 240(1) applies to “contractors and owners and their agents”… . “A party is deemed to be an agent of an owner or general contractor under the Labor Law when it has supervisory control and authority over the work being done where a plaintiff is injured” … . “To impose such liability, the defendant must have the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury so as to enable it to avoid or correct the unsafe condition” … . The determinative factor is whether the defendant had “the right to exercise control over the work, not whether it actually exercised that right” … . Here, Arrow Steel had the authority to enforce safety standards and choose the subcontractor who did the asbestos work. Additionally, Arrow Steel directly entered into a contract with [plaintiff’s employer], and had the authority to exercise control over the work, even if it did not actually do so … . Cabrera v Arrow Steel Window Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 05275, Second Dept 7-18-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A LADDER, DEFENDANT WAS APPARENTLY LIABLE AS AN AGENT OF THE OWNER WITH AUTHORITY OVER SAFETY MEASURES (SECOND DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A LADDER, DEFENDANT WAS APPARENTLY LIABLE AS AN AGENT OF THE OWNER WITH AUTHORITY OVER SAFETY MEASURES (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
DEFENDANTS’ CONDOMINIUM WAS DAMAGED BY FIRE FORCING THEM TO LIVE ELSEWHERE FOR A YEAR; THE ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF DID NOT MAKE TIMELY REPAIRS DID NOT RELIEVE DEFENDANTS OF THEIR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO PAY THE COMMON CHARGES (SECOND DEPT). ​
Question of Fact Re: Plaintiff’s Comparative Fault Precludes Summary Judgment—Supreme Court Erroneously Granted Summary Judgment to Plaintiff “To the Extent … Defendant Is Liable”
GALLBLADDER SURGERY WAS PERFORMED ON PLAINTIFF, BUT HER GALLBLADDER HAD BEEN REMOVED YEARS BEFORE; THE DOCTORS APPARENTLY DID NOT REVIEW THE AVAIABLE MEDICAL RECORDS; THE RADIOLOGIST DID NOT DISCOVER THAT THE GALLBLADDER WAS ABSENT; THE DOCTORS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
COVENANT PROHIBITING CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL GARAGE DID NOT RUN WITH THE LAND, PLAINTIFF THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO ENFORCE IT (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE THE DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WAS ZONING COMPLIANT WAS NEVER FILED THE 30-DAY APPEAL PERIOD NEVER RAN, BECAUSE A NOTICED HEARING WAS NEVER HELD THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION WAS JURISDICTIONALLY DEFECTIVE (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Demonstrating Documents Were Material Prepared in Anticipation of Litigation
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, PROOF OF GENERAL CLEANING AND INSPECTION PRACTICES WAS NOT ENOUGH TO DEMONSTRATE THE LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF LIQUID ON THE FLOOR (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS HYBRID ARTICLE 78-DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION, THE PORTIONS OF THE PETITION WHICH SOUGHT A DECLARATION THAT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE ARE ILLEGAL AND RELATED DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, SUA SPONTE, IN THE ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC DEMAND FOR DISMISSAL (SECOND 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

MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL UNLESS PLAINTIFF AGREED TO A REDUCTION IN DAMAGES FOR... COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT IT DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION, I.E....