You are here: / / APPELLANT WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR OWNER, DID NOT...

APPELLANT WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR OR OWNER, DID NOT SUPERVISE AND CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND DID NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED IN THIS CONSTRUCTION-DEBRIS-SLIP-AND-FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the appellant, which was hired by the construction manager to put in concrete steps, was bit an agent of the general contractor or the owner and did not exercise supervisory control plaintiff’s work in this Labor Law 200, 240(1) and 241(6) action. Plaintiff worked for an HVAC contractor and fell over construction debris on a temporary ramp leading to the entrance of the premises:

To hold a defendant liable as an agent of the general contractor or the owner for violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), there must be a showing that it had the authority to supervise and control the work that brought about the injury …  “The determinative factor is whether the party had the right to exercise control over the work, not whether it actually exercised that right” … . “Where the owner or general contractor does in fact delegate the duty to conform to the requirements of the Labor Law to a third-party subcontractor, the subcontractor becomes the statutory agent of the owner or general contractor” … .

Here, the appellant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action insofar as asserted against it by demonstrating that it was not an agent of the general contractor or the owner with regard to the plaintiff’s work … . There was no evidence that the appellant had any authority to supervise or control the work of the plaintiff … . … [T]he appellant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action insofar as asserted against it by demonstrating that it did not have control over the work site … . Fiore v Westerman Constr. Co., Inc., 2020 NY Slip Op 04460, Second Dept 12-12-20

 

You might also like
Proximate Cause Can Not Be Based Upon Speculation; Many Possible Causes
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT OF RPAPL 1304 WAS NOT PROVEN IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; PROOF REQUIREMENTS EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).
BANK’S EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
U-HAUL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS FREE FROM NEGLIGENCE IN MAINTAINING ITS TRUCK IN THIS VEHICLE-ACCIDENT CASE, MOTION TO DISMISS PROPERLY DENIED.
Subcontractor Which Did Not Supervise Injured Plaintiff or Control Site Safety May Still Be Liable Under Common-Law Negligence for Creating the Dangerous Condition
PROOF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE VICTIM’S EYE INJURY ROSE TO THE LEVEL OF ‘SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY;’ BASED UPON A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE ANALYSIS, ASSAULT FIRST REDUCED TO ASSAULT SECOND (SECOND DEPT).
FOIL Request Should Not Have Been Denied—Questions of Fact About Ability to Retrieve Documents
Request for Redacted Signatures on Sheriff’s Department Overtime Records Properly Granted—-Attorney’s Fees Properly Awarded

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

THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION,... PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST RAN INTO THE BACK OF DEFENDANT’S STOPPED OR STOPPING...