You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND WHETHER...

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY OVER SAFETY CONDITIONS IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) LADDER-FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) ladder-fall action was properly denied as against the alleged genera contractor, Edler. There was a question of fact whether Edler was a general contractor and whether Edler had the authority to supervise safety conditions:

To be found a “general contractor” for purposes of establishing liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), plaintiffs must show that Edler had the ability to control the activity bringing about the injury and the authority to correct unsafe conditions … . Here, plaintiffs failed to establish, as a matter of law, that Edler had the ability to control [plaintiff’s employer’s] work at the premises or stop the work. The record reflects that although Edler was hired to “supervise” the project, Edler did not hire, retain or pay any of the contractors working at the premises … . Moreover, the homeowner testified that he “assume[d]” that Edler had safety responsibilities and that it was his understanding that Edler had the authority to stop work on the job site if an unsafe condition arose. However, Edler’s principal denies that he had the authority to stop the work at the premises, and the agreement between Edler and the homeowner does not specifically confer upon Edler the authority to stop the work if an unsafe condition was observed … . Rather, it provides that part of Edler’s “site supervision” responsibilities included supervising “day to day operations” of the site and trade. An issue of fact remains as to whether this includes supervision of the safety conditions. Uzeyiroglu v Edler Estate Care Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 03285, First Dept 4-30-19

 

You might also like
The Three-Year Statute of Limitations in the Education Law Need Not Be Raised as a Defense—Here the Charges Against a Teacher Were Time-Barred—The Department of Education (DOE) Did Not Demonstrate the Charges Were Criminal (to Which the Three-Year Statute Would Not Have Applied)
NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY NOT ENTITLED TO PRESUMPTION BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN 1974 DID NOT HAVE LEAD PAINT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.
THE ADMISSION OF AN UNNOTICED STATEMENT BY DEFENDANT WAS NOT HARMLESS ERROR; ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE HAD DISCLOSED THE INTERVIEW IN WHICH THE STATEMENT WAS MADE, THEY DID NOT DISCLOSE THE SPECIFIC STATEMENT; THE DEFENDANT MOVED TO PRECLUDE THE STATEMENT AT TRIAL (FIRST DEPT).
THE JUDGE DID NOT READ THE JURY NOTE IN ITS ENTIRETY TO THE PARTIES AND THE JUDGE’S PARAPHRASE OF THE CONTENTS OMITTED SIGNIFICANT ASPECTS OF IT; THE FACT THAT THE JURY ANNOUNCED IT HAD REACHED A VERDICT BEFORE THE NOTE WAS CALLED TO THE PARTIES’ ATTENTION DID NOT MATTER; THE MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRED REVERSAL (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.
IN THE CONTEXT OF AN INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE REQUIRED BY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW, THE 1ST DEPARTMENT NOTED THAT, UNDER THE COMMON LAW, UNSIGNED DOCUMENTS ARE ENFORCEABLE AS LONG AS THE PARTIES INTENDED TO BE BOUND (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO CONSIDERATION WHETHER ENFORCING THE AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE THIS EMPLOYMENT DISPUTE WOULD, BECAUSE OF THE COSTS INVOLVED, EFFECTIVELY PRECLUDE PLAINTIFF FROM PURSUING HIS CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).
A LEASE BETWEEN PLAINTIFF CORPORATION AND DEFENDANTS (ONE OF WHOM WAS A MEMBER OF PLAINTIFF’S BOARD) WAS NOT VOTED ON BY A MAJORITY OF DISINTERESTED DIRECTORS AND WAS THEREFORE VOIDABLE UNDER BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW 713(B); DEFENDANTS BREACHED THEIR FIDUCIARAY DUTY TO THE CORPORATION BY SUBLETTING THE LEASED PREMISES FOR A MUCH HIGHER RENT WITHOUT PLAINTIFF’S KNOWLEDGE (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

REPORT OF FIRE MARSHAL, WHO HAD NO INDEPENDENT RECOLLECTION OF HIS INVESTIGATION... THE COMPLAINT ALLEGED THE ICY CONDITION EXISTED BEFORE 10 INCHES OF SNOW FELL,...