You are here: / / GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE ANY SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S...

GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE ANY SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND THEREFORE WAS NOT LIABLE FOR AN INJURY ARISING FROM THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK FOR A SUBCONTRACTOR; LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 200 action against the general contractor, El Sol. should have been dismissed. The accident involved the manner in which the work was done, not a dangerous condition. Plaintiff was employed by a subcontractor. Because El Sol did not exercise any supervisory control over plaintiff’s work, El Sol was not liable:

“Cases involving Labor Law § 200 fall into two broad categories: namely, those where workers are injured as a result of dangerous or defective premises conditions at a work site, and those involving the manner in which the work is performed” … . Where “a claim arises out of alleged defects or dangers arising from a subcontractor’s methods or materials, recovery against the owner or general contractor cannot be had unless it is shown that the party to be charged exercised some supervisory control over the operation” … . “A defendant has the authority to supervise or control the work for purposes of Labor Law § 200 when that defendant bears the responsibility for the manner in which the work is performed” … . “[M]ere general supervisory authority at a work site for the purpose of overseeing the progress of the work and inspecting the work product is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200” … .

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contentions, El Sol established, prima facie, that the accident did not arise from a dangerous or defective premises condition but from the method and manner of the work … . El Sol further established that it did not exercise supervision or control over the performance of the work giving rise to the accident … . Boody v El Sol Contr. & Constr. Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 01140, Second Dept 2-19-20

 

You might also like
ISSUE WAS NEVER JOINED, THEREFORE THE ACTION COULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 (SECOND DEPT).
Absence of a Certificate of Conformity Not a Fatal Defect Re: a Motion for a Default Judgment/Court Should Not Have Raised, Sua Sponte, a Defense to the Motion on Behalf of Defendant Who Did Not Answer or Appear
THE CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS NOT AUTHENTICATED; BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS AT THE TIME OF THE FALL, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPERATOR OF A SKATING RINK PROVIDED PROPER SUPERVISION AND THEREFORE WHETHER THE ASSUMPTION OF RISK DOCTRINE APPLIED, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED SHE WAS PUSHED TO THE ICE BY AN UNRULY SKATER (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE DEMONSTRATED FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE FAULT AND WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
THE DISCIPLINE AND SUSPENSION OF STUDENTS ARE NOT ARBITRABLE TOPICS, ARBITRATION WOULD CONFLICT WITH PUBLIC POLICY AFFORDING DISCRETION TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS 2ND DEPT.
THE DEFENSE REQUEST TO PRESENT THE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY OF AN UNAVAILABLE WITNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S DOUBLE-PARKED TRUCK MERELY FURNISHED THE OCCASION FOR THE MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT OR WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT; PLAINTIFF FLIPPED OVER THE MOTORCYCLE BRAKING TO AVOID COLLIDING WITH THE TRUCK (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

PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM IN THIS PEDESTRIAN HIT-AND-RUN ACTION WAS NOT AUTOMATICALLY... SIDEWALK DAMAGE CAUSED BY TREE ROOTS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AFFIRMATIVE NEGLIGENCE...