You are here: / / LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE...
,

LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence causes of action should not have been dismissed:

This Labor Law and common-law negligence action arises from injuries sustained by Michael W. Parkhurst (decedent) when he slipped and fell on plastic sheeting covering newly-laid carpet after descending a ladder while performing drywall finishing work. …

Where, as here, “the worker's injuries result from a dangerous condition at the work site rather than from the manner in which the work is performed, the general contractor or owner may be liable in common-law negligence and under Labor Law § 200 if it has control over the work site and [has created or has] actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition” … . “Thus, [d]efendants, as the parties seeking summary judgment dismissing those claims, were required to establish as a matter of law that they did not exercise any supervisory control over the general condition of the premises or that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition on the premises” … , and defendants failed to meet that burden here. Parkhurst v Syracuse Regional Airport Auth., 2018 NY Slip Op 06670, Fourth Dept 10-5-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FATAL VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE BECAUSE DECEDENT’S ALLEGED CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE DOES NOT BAR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DECEDENT’S NEGLIGENCE WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON THE GROUND DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO INFORM HIM THE DECISION WHETHER TO TESTIFY WAS HIS TO MAKE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE AFORD PLEA WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY STRONG EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S INTENT TO COMMIT GRAND LARCENY, THE PLEA WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).
New York’s Seatbelt Defense Applies to Action Stemming from Pennsylvania Accident (Where There Is No Seatbelt Defense)—Defense Is Not a Conduct-Regulating Law (Which Would Trigger the Application of Pennsylvania Law)—Rather the Defense Relates to the Allocation of Damages (Which Supports the Application of New York Law)
PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF AN ACCIDENT INVOLVING HER GOLF CART AND A MOTOR VEHICLE IN THE COUNTY GOLF COURSE PARKING LOT; TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE STATE BREACHED ITS DUTY TO PROTECT AN INMATE FROM AN ATTACK BY OTHER INMATES; COURT OF CLAIMS REVERSED OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION IN THIS CRIMIINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON PROSECUTION (FOURTH DEPT).
COUNTY COURT FAILED TO MAKE A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER DETERMINATION, CASE REMITTED.

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

DRUG-RELATED NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT). WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID AND GUILTY PLEA VACATED BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED...