You are here: / / DEFENDANT, AN OUT OF POSSESSION LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY WHERE PLAINTIFF...
,

DEFENDANT, AN OUT OF POSSESSION LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED, WAS NOT AN OWNER WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant demonstrated it was not an owner of the property where plaintiff was injured and therefore was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action. Defendant had leased the property from the state and then subleased the property to a non-party (EDGE). EDGE hired Jersen, the construction company for which the injured plaintiff worked:

It is well established that, for purposes of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) liability, “the term owner’ is not limited to the titleholder of the property where the accident occurred and encompasses a [party] who has an interest in the property and who fulfilled the role of owner by contracting to have work performed for [its] benefit’ “… . ” [The owner] is the party who, as a practical matter, has the right to hire or fire subcontractors and to insist that proper safety practices are followed’ “… . Thus, “[t]he key factor in determining whether a non-titleholder is an owner’ is the right to insist that proper safety practices were followed and it is the right to control the work that is significant, not the actual exercise or nonexercise of control’ ” … . …

In his affidavit, Jersen’s project manager averred that defendant was neither a party to nor involved with the negotiation of the construction contract between EDGE and Jersen; the project manager never saw any employees or representatives of defendant on site during the project; Jersen employees were not permitted to take orders from anyone other than an authorized Jersen representative; and defendant had no authority or control over Jersen employees working on the project. Those averments are consistent with the construction contract, which defined EDGE as the “[o]wner” and Jersen as the “[c]ontractor,” and provided that Jersen, as the “[c]ontractor,” was solely responsible for instituting and supervising all safety precautions and protections. Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the mere fact that the sublease between defendant and EDGE required defendant’s approval of the plans and specifications for the project work does not raise a material issue of fact where, as here, defendant did not contract to have the project work performed and the sublease “did not vest [defendant] with authority to determine which contractors to hire, . . . control the [project] work or . . . insist that proper safety practices [be] followed’ ” … . Ritter v Fort Schuyler Mgt. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 00769, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

You might also like
Complaint Against Town for Sewage Backup in Home Dismissed
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT ACTED SUSPICIOUSLY THE POLICE DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE SUSPICION HE WAS ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AT THE TIME DEFENDANT FLED; DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS OF FACT CONCERNING WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WHOLE FOODS STORE IN THE VICINITY OF A RECREATIONAL TRAIL AND A PUBLIC USE EASEMENT VIOLATES THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Policy Language Interpreted to Support Plaintiff’s Allegation the Insurer Was Timely Notified of Injured Worker’s Claim
EVIDENCE OF EXCESSIVE CORPORAL PUNISHMENT WARRANTED A NEGLECT FINDING, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).
RESTITUTION IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY CAP FOR LOST WAGES WAS IMPROPERLY AWARDED BECAUSE “LOST WAGES” DOES NOT FIT ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE CAP RESTRICTION (FOURTH DEPT).
PETITIONER DID NOT LIVE IN THE TOWN WHERE THE CHALLENGED CANDIDATE WAS RUNNING FOR OFFICE AND THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE DESIGNATING PETITIONS, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE STRUCK THE RESPONDENT CANDIDATES’ ANSWER BASED UPON ALLEGED DEFECTS IN THE VERIFICATION AND DENIALS (FOURTH DEPT).
THE ERRONEOUS “LOSS OF CHANCE” JURY INSTRUCTION REQUIRED REVERSAL; THE CHARGE USED THE PHRASES “SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR” AND “SUBSTANTIAL PROBABILITY” WHEN THE CORRECT PHRASE IS “SUBSTANTIAL POSSIBILITY” IN REFERENCE TO WHETHER A BETTER OUTCOME WAS DENIED DUE TO A DEVIATION FROM THE STANDARD OF CARE (FOURTH 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

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE LET A PARTY DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF SUPERVISED... TRIAL COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON ASSAULT THIRD AS A LESSER...