You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY WAS AN OWNER OR AGENT...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY WAS AN OWNER OR AGENT OF THE OWNER FOR LABOR LAW PURPOSES, PROPERTY MANAGER WAS NOT LIABLE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A ROOF (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action, stemming from falling from a roof he was working on, should have been granted with respect to the property owner (Bruckner) and the general contractor (Metro). There was a question of fact whether Western, which leased the property, was an “owner” or “agent” of the owner for Labor Law purposes. However, the property manager, Ashkenazy, had no authority to supervise or control plaintiff’s work and was not liable under Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6) or 200:

An issue of fact exists as to whether Western, the lessee, was an “owner” or “agent” of the owner, for Labor Law purposes. Record evidence showing that Western was responsible for renovating the premises, including the roof, and had retained Metro as the general contractor for the renovation work, raises an issue of fact as to whether Western had the authority to supervise and control the work site … . The testimony of Western’s director of merchandising that he was not involved with the construction work is insufficient to excuse Western from liability, where he had no knowledge of, and could not testify to, the lease arrangements between Western and Bruckner, as well as the arrangement between Western and Metro … .

Ashkenazy had no involvement with the construction work, and was onsite only to check on its progress, and to ensure it did not interfere with the other tenants. The belief of its “Director of Property Management” that he may have been able to stop work at the job site “[w]ith proper notice I guess as per the lease” is too equivocal to raise an issue of fact. Because there was no evidence that Ashkenazy had authority to supervise or control the work site, the Labor Law § 240(1) claim should be dismissed against it … . Ashkenazy is also entitled to dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim because, for the same reasons, it is not an “owner” or “agent” under that statute … . Without authority to supervise or control plaintiff’s work, Ashkenazy also may not be held liable under Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence principles in this case involving the means and method of plaintiff’s work … . Reyes v Bruckner Plaza Shopping Ctr. LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 05003, First Dept 6-20-19

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PROPERLY DENIED, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF WATER ON THE FLOOR (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO FILE AFFIDAVITS OF SERVICE WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT WITHIN 20 DAYS IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT; SERVICE IS DEEMED COMPLETE 10 DAYS AFTER FILING A MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT WITH THE AFFIDAVITS OF SERVICE (FIRST DEPT). ​
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED A RELEASE WHICH DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME THE CASE WAS REVERSED ON APPEAL AND SENT BACK (FIRST DEPT).
A SUBPOENA ISSUED BY AN ATTORNEY IS A “JUDICIAL” SUBPOENA SUBJECT TO A CONTEMPT PROCEEDING WITHOUT THE NEED TO FIRST SEEK A COURT ORDER COMPELLING COMPLIANCE (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE EXISTED A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANT INSURANCE BROKER SUCH THAT THE BROKER COULD BE LIABLE FOR THE FAILURE TO PROCURE ADEQUATE COVERAGE FOR A DEMOLITION PROJECT (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONERS. RELATIVES OF PERSONS IN THE NYS DNA DATABASE, HAD STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE RESPONDENTS’ REGULATIONS ALLOWING THE RELEASE OF “FAMILIAL DNA MATCH” INFORMATION LINKING DNA FROM A CRIME SCENE TO A FAMILY, NOT AN INDIVIDUAL; THE REGULATIONS WERE BASED ON SOCIAL POLICY AND THEREFORE EXCEEDED THE REGULATORY POWERS OF THE RESPONDENT AGENCIES; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE REGULATIONS (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A FALLING OBJECT; COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A DEFENSE TO A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1), 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER ONE OF THE DEFENDANT’S EXERCISED SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE SITE (FIRST DEPT).
Principal’s Failure to Follow the Performance-Rating Procedures Required by the School District and Collective Bargaining Agreement Deprived a School Social Worker of a Fair Review Process—Unsatisfatory Rating (U-Rating) Annulled

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DISCONTINUANCE OF A PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION DE-ACCELERATED... DEFENDANT RAILROAD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FEDERAL EMPLOYERS’...