You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND A STATUTORY AGENT...

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE PROJECT OWNER ARE LIABLE FOR THE INJURIES TO AN EMPLOYEE OF A SUBCONTRACTOR IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) LADDER CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that several causes of action in this Labor Law 240 (1) ladder-fall case should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff's employer (nonparty Capitol) was hired as a subcontractor by Ruggles, which had a contract for signage and awnings with the operator of the retail store for which the work was done (Express). Express had hired Russco to act as the general contractor for the renovation work. Russco had the authority to hire all subcontractors with the exception of the signage and awning work:

Russco's [the general contractor's] motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) claim as against it on the ground that it is not a proper defendant under the Labor Law was correctly denied as there is an issue of fact as to whether its obligations as the general contractor on the project extended to the work performed by plaintiff. … … [T]he contract … provides that Russco is responsible for “taking all reasonable safety precautions to prevent injury or death to persons or damage to property” and that such responsibility extends “to the protection of all employees on the Project and all other persons who may be affected by the Work in any way” … . * * *

Ruggles is a proper Labor Law § 240(1) defendant because it was a statutory agent of Express, the owner of the project. It is undisputed that Express hired Ruggles as the sole contractor responsible for the manufacture and installation of all signage and awning work on the project, which was the work that plaintiff was performing when he sustained his injuries. Although Russco may be found liable based on its site safety obligations with regard to the signage and awning work, there is no question that, pursuant to the contract between Ruggles and Express, Ruggles was delegated the supervision and control over such work. Moreover, Ruggles may not escape liability under Labor Law § 240(1) based on its delegation of the signage and awning work to Capitol, plaintiff's employer. White v 31-01 Steinway, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 06685, First Dept 10-9-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE PROJECT OWNER ARE LIABLE FOR THE INJURIES TO AN EMPLOYEE OF A SUBCONTRACTOR IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) LADDER CASE (FIRST DEPT))/STATUTORY AGENTS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE PROJECT OWNER ARE LIABLE FOR THE INJURIES TO AN EMPLOYEE OF A SUBCONTRACTOR IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) LADDER CASE (FIRST DEPT))/AGENTS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, STATUTORY AGENTS, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE PROJECT OWNER ARE LIABLE FOR THE INJURIES TO AN EMPLOYEE OF A SUBCONTRACTOR IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) LADDER CASE (FIRST DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE PROJECT OWNER ARE LIABLE FOR THE INJURIES TO AN EMPLOYEE OF A SUBCONTRACTOR IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) LADDER CASE (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
EXPERT EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY ABOUT THE COLOR OF THE ICE RAISED ISSUES OF FACT ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF A HAZARDOUS CONDITION AND NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
DAMAGE TO SOIL FROM LEAD EMISSIONS AND LEAD PAINT COULD NOT BE SEPARATED, ALTHOUGH LEAD PAINT DAMAGE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE POLICY EXCLUSION, THE EXCLUSION FOR LEAD EMISSIONS CONTROLLED.
Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine Applied
Aeration Tank Constituted an Unventilated Confined Area Requiring Air Quality Monitoring
THE PROMISE TO REPAY THE LOAN WAS NOT UNCONDITIONAL BUT RATHER THE DEFENDANT’S HAVING AVAILABLE CASH TO REPAY THE LOAN WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT HAD AVAILABLE CASH, ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT BUILDING OWNER AND MANAGER WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE UNDER THE STORM-IN-PROGRESS DOCTRINE, 18 INCHES OF SNOW HAD FALLEN LESS THAN TWO HOURS BEFORE; PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON WATER ON STAIRS IN THE LOBBY; PLAINTIFF’S OWN TESTIMONY DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS ACTION STEMMING FROM WORTHLESS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY PLED THAT GROSS NEGLIGENCE PRECLUDED ENFORCEMENT OF THE ‘SOLE REMEDIES’ CLAUSES AND THE DEMANDS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES AND ATTORNEY’S FEES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT GAVE TWO STATEMENTS, ONE IN THE MORNING TO THE POLICE, ONE IN THE AFTERNOON TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY; THE FIRST STATEMENT WAS INDUCED BY MISINFORMATION ABOUT WHETHER THE STATEMENT COULD BE USED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT AND WAS SUPPRESSED BY THE MOTION COURT; THE SECOND STATEMENT, AND THE KNIFE AND DNA RECOVERED BASED UPON THE SECOND STATEMENT, SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FIRST 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

FAILURE TO APPRISE COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS... TOWN EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY AND VIOLATED A FEDERAL REGULATION WHEN IT ASSESSED...