You are here: / / DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER OF METAL ROOFING WAS A CONTRACTOR WITHIN THE MEANING...

DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER OF METAL ROOFING WAS A CONTRACTOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK, EVEN IF IT DID NOT DO SO; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A ROOF WHERE THE METAL ROOFING WAS BEING INSTALLED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant Union was a contractor within the meaning of Labor Law 240 (1) and plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment against Union on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action stemming from his fall from the roof of a residence where metal roofing manufactured by Union was being installed by plaintiff’s employer:

It is well settled that the Labor Law “holds . . . general contractors absolutely liable for any breach of the statute even if the job was performed by an independent contractor over which [they] exercised no supervision or control” … , inasmuch as “[t]heir status as contractors is dependent on their right to exercise control, not whether they in fact did so” … . In determining whether a defendant may be found liable pursuant to section 240 (1), it is well settled that, where, as here, a defendant “ha[s] the authority to choose the part[y] who did the work, and directly enter[s] into [a] contract[] with th[at party], it ha[s] the authority to exercise control over the work, even if it [does] not actually do so” … .

… [P]laintiff submitted evidence establishing that Union entered into a contract with plaintiff’s employer to install the roofing materials at issue and that the contract provided Union with the power to, inter alia, perform inspections, stop work, and remove plaintiff’s employer from the job. We therefore conclude that plaintiff demonstrated as a matter of law that Union is a “contractor” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) … . Barker v Union Corrugating Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 05349, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

You might also like
VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SHOWING DEFENDANT ENTERING THE MALL WITH EMPTY BAGS FROM A STORE THAT WAS NOT IN THE MALL AND LEAVING WITH ITEMS IN THE BAGS DID NOT AMOUNT TO “REASONABLE SUSPICION” JUSTIFYING THE VEHICLE STOP; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT THE AWARD OF PRIMARY PHYSICAL CUSTODY TO MOTHER, FAMILY COURT REVERSED, ALTHOUGH THE CHILD WISHED TO STAY WITH MOTHER, THAT FACTOR WAS AFFORDED LITTLE WEIGHT DUE TO THE CHILD’S YOUNG AGE.
THE OFFICER WHO STOPPED THE CAR IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS A PASSENGER AFTER HEARING GUN SHOTS DID NOT HAVE THE REASONABLE SUSPICION NEEDED FOR THE SEIZURE OF A VEHICLE; THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
APPEAL HELD IN RESERVE AND THE MATTER SENT BACK FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE APPRISED DEFENSE COUNSEL OF THE ENTIRE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE (FOURTH DEPT).
CITIZEN INFORMANT WHO WALKED INTO THE POLICE STATION PROVIDED SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO JUSTIFY APPROACHING A VAN IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS SLEEPING, LEADING TO DEFENDANT’S ARREST; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE FACE-TO-FACE INTERVIEW WITH THE INFORMANT DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH REASONABLE SUSPICION (FOURTH DEPT).
AN ADULT GUEST’S ACT OF POURING KEROSENE ONTO AN ACTIVE FIRE IN A FIRE PIT AT DEFENDANTS’ HOME WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S BURN INJURIES; THE DISSENTER ARGUED THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A DUTY TO CONTROL THE GUEST’S BEHAVIOR WAS BREACHED (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION, THE TWO DISSENTERS WOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE INDICTMENT BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY OF THE POLICE OFFICERS AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING DESCRIBING THE TRAFFIC STOP WAS NOT CREDIBLE (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL PROVIDED DEFENDANT WITH ERRONEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT THE LENGTH OF HIS SENTENCE SHOULD HE BE CONVICTED AFTER TRIAL AND ERRONEOUSLY TOLD THE DEFENDANT HIS PLEA TO SEX TRAFFICKING WOULD NOT MAKE HIM SUBJECT TO THE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA), DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA REVERSED (FOURTH 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

DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, FAILED TO YIELD THE... INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A LOOSE PANEL ON...