You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT WERE RAISED ABOUT DEFENDANT CON ED’S AUTHORITY...
,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WERE RAISED ABOUT DEFENDANT CON ED’S AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION, IN PART BY THE TERMS OF A CONTRACT, CON ED’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF WAS USING AN EXCAVATOR WHEN IT TIPPED OVER INTO A CREEK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant Con Ed’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 241 (6), Labor Law 200 and common law negligence action should not have been granted. Plaintiff was using an excavator in a narrow, sloped area when the excavator tipped over into a creek. The terms of a contract raised questions of fact about Con Ed’s supervisory authority and responsibilities:

Con Ed did not demonstrate, prima facie, that Industrial Code § 23-4.2(c), which requires supervision for certain excavation work, was inapplicable here, nor did it demonstrate, prima facie, that this regulation was not violated … . Further, Con Ed did not demonstrate, prima facie, that Industrial Code §§ 23-4.2(a) and 23-4.4(a), which require, inter alia, proper footing for certain work using excavators and similar equipment, were inapplicable here, or that these regulations were not violated in this case … . Con Ed also did not demonstrate, prima facie, that Industrial Code §§ 23-9.4(c), and 23-9.5(a), which require, inter alia, the use of shoring and/or temporary sheeting for certain excavation work, were inapplicable here, or that these regulations were not violated in this case … . Further, Con Ed did not show that any alleged violations of the aforementioned regulations did not constitute a proximate cause of the occurrence … . Any comparative negligence on the part of the plaintiff does not preclude liability founded upon a violation of Labor Law § 241(6)  … . * * *

There are “two broad categories of actions that implicate the provisions of Labor Law § 200” … . The first category involves worker injuries arising out of alleged dangerous or defective conditions on the premises where the work is performed … . In those circumstances, “[f]or liability to be imposed on the property owner, there must be evidence showing that the property owner either created a dangerous or defective condition, or had actual or constructive notice of it without remedying it within a reasonable time” … . “The second broad category of actions under Labor Law § 200 involves injuries occasioned by the use of dangerous or defective equipment at the job site” … . A property owner will be held liable under this category only if it possessed the authority to supervise or control the means and methods of the work … . The requisite supervision or control exists for Labor Law § 200 purposes when the property owner bears responsibility for the manner in which the work is performed … . “The determinative factor is whether the party had the right to exercise control over the work, not whether it actually exercised that right'” … . Moscati v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 00112, Second Dept 1-9-19

 

You might also like
DEPRESSED DRAIN NEAR CONDOMINIUM ENTRANCE WAS A NON-ACTIONABLE TRIVIAL DEFECT.
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE GRAVES AMENDMENT, WHICH RELIEVES THE OWNER OF A LEASED VEHICLE FROM LIABILITY FOR A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, DID NOT APPLY TO THE DEFENDANT OWNER; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
No Appeal Lies from Direction to Settle Judgment on Notice
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF THE WEATHER AT THE TIME OF THE ICE SLIP AND FALL PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE STORM-IN-PROGRESS RULE; IN ADDITION, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE ICE WAS THERE FOR SOME TIME BEFORE THE FALL AND DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY LACKED ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF IT; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT). ​
PETITIONERS, INMATES AT A CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RAISED ALLEGATIONS COGNIZABLE IN HABEAS CORPUS REGARDING THE FACILITY’S RESPONSE TO COVID-19; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ISSUE AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITIONERS SHOULD NOT BE RELEASED (SECOND DEPT).
A PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING DID NOT ACCELERATE THE MORTGAGE DEBT, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THEREFORE, DID NOT START TO RUN (SECOND DEPT).
THE COUNTY’S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUEST WITHIN FIVE DAYS IS A DENIAL; THE COUNTY’S FAILURE TO NOTIFY PETITIONER OF THE AVAILABILITY OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF THE DENIAL EXCUSED PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO SEEK ADMINSTRATIVE REVIEW; PETITIONER’S ARTICLE 78 ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES (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

CONTRACT RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER CONSTRUCTION MANAGER HAD SUFFICIENT... DISCIPLINARY DETERMINATION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (SECOND...