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
MOLD-INJURY CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED AT THE PLEADING STAGE, PLAINTIFF ADEQUATELY PLED THE DEVELOPMENT OF “NEW” SYMPTOMS WITHIN THREE YEARS OF FILING SUIT.
INSURANCE COVERAGE DEPENDED UPON WHETHER THE INJURED RESPONDENT RESIDED WITH HIS SON IN MAINE; RESPONDENT ALLEGED HE SPLIT HIS TIME BETWEEN RESIDING IN NEW YORK AND RESIDING WITH HIS SON; A PERSON MAY HAVE MORE THAN ONE RESIDENCE; A FRAMED-ISSUE HEARING WAS REQUIRED (FIRST DEPT).
NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY COULD NOT AVOID DISCLOSURE OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS BY RELYING ON ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE BECAUSE IT HAD PLACED THE KNOWLEDGE OF ITS LAW DEPARTMENT AT ISSUE, MOTION TO COMPEL WAS PROPERLY GRANTED, MONETARY SANCTIONS WERE PROPERLY ORDERED, WILLFUL AND CONTUMACIOUS BEHAVIOR NEED NOT BE SHOWN UNLESS A DRASTIC REMEDY LIKE STRIKING THE PLEADINGS IS IMPOSED (FIRST DEPT).
​EMOTIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGES, AS OPPOSED TO PECUNIARY DAMAGES, WILL NOT SUPPORT AN ACTION FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH AN OPENING IN THE FLOOR WHEN THE PLYWOOD COVERING THE OPENING SHIFTED; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RAMP FROM WHICH HE FELL WAS NEGLIGENTLY DESIGNED OR MAINTAINED, NO APPLICABLE BUILDING OR SAFETY CODES (FIRST DEPT).
Ambiguity of Contract Is a Question of Fact Where Credibility of Extrinsic Evidence Must Be Assessed
IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO RETURN THE CHILD TO MOTHER DURING THE PENDENCY OF NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS; MOTHER HAD INJURED THE CHILD AND THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS FOR THE CHILD’S RETURN WILL ENSURE THE CHILD’S SAFETY (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

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