You are here: / / COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE...

COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), THE COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE, EVEN IF IT DID NOT EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the company which hired plaintiff’s employer, New York Plumbing, and the property owner,, Park Plaza, were liable for plaintiff’s fall, pursuant to Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6). New York Plumbing was liable because it had the authority to supervise plaintiff’s work, even if it did not exercise that authority. Park Plaza was not entitled to summary judgment on its indemnification action against New York Plumbing because it did not demonstrated New York Plumbing exercised actual supervision over plaintiff’s work. Plaintiff fell from the top of a temporary oil storage tank which was being emptied and cleaned:

Contrary to New York Plumbing’s contention, the plaintiff demonstrated, prima facie, that New York Plumbing had the authority to exercise control over the plaintiff’s work, even if it did not actually do so, and that New York Plumbing was therefore a proper defendant under the Labor Law … . …

Moreover, the plaintiff demonstrated that he was engaged in a protected activity under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) when he was injured … .

The plaintiff demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action insofar as asserted against the Park Plaza defendants [the property owner] and New York Plumbing. The plaintiff submitted evidence that he fell from a 12-to 16-foot high surface, and that he had not been provided with safety devices to protect him from such a fall … . …

The plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action was predicated on an alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) … . The Park Plaza defendants and New York Plumbing failed to establish, prima facie, that a slippery condition on the oil tank was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s fall … .

Finally, the Park Plaza defendants did not demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on their cross claim for common-law indemnification against New York Plumbing, as their submissions did not establish, prima facie, that New York Plumbing exercised actual supervision over the plaintiff’s work … . Padilla v Park Plaza Owners Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 07317, Second Dept 10-31-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), THE COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE, EVEN IF IT DID NOT EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT))/INDEMNIFICATION (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), THE COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE, EVEN IF IT DID NOT EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
FATHER TOLD THE COURT HE HAD RETAINED COUNSEL BUT COUNSEL COULD NOT ATTEND THE PETITION-TO-RELOCATE HEARING THAT DAY, COURT WENT AHEAD WITH THE HEARING, FATHER DEPRIVED OF HIS STATUTORY RIGHT TO COUNSEL.
THE APPELLATE COURT, OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT, REFUSED TO LOWER DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE BY ONE DAY TO AVOID DEPORTATION (SECOND DEPT).
SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED, NO SHOWING EVIDENCE WAS DESTROYED WITH A CULPABLE STATE OF MIND.
EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT JOINED A CONSPIRACY TO MURDER WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT PROOF THE ALLONGE WAS FIRMLY AFFIXED TO THE NOTE AS REQUIRED BY UCC 3-202 (SECOND DEPT).
WIFE ENTITLED TO SHARE OF HUSBAND’S SEPARATE PROPERTY WHICH WAS COMMINGLED WITH MARITAL FUNDS, WIFE ALSO ENTITLED TO SHARE OF APPRECIATION OF HUSBAND’S SEPARATE PROPERTY.
FAMILY COURT DID NOT ARTICULATE ITS REASONS FOR DETERMINING CHILD SUPPORT BASED ON PARENTAL INCOME IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY CAP; THE ORIGINAL SUPPORT LEVEL BASED ON THE STATUTORY CAP REINSTATED (SECOND DEPT).
NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LANDLORD BASED UPON AN ASSAULT AGAINST PLAINTIFF IN THE HALLWAY OF PLAINTIFF’S APARTMENT BUILDING PROPERLY DISMISSED (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

EXPERT EVIDENCE ON THE CROSS-RACE EFFECT ON THE ABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE PERPETRATOR... TRIAL TESTIMONY ALLEGING MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE IN THE SINGLE...