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
Evidence Sufficient to Support Count Charging Sexual Abuse First Degree, Despite Evidence Defendant Did Not Touch the Victim for the Purpose of Gratifying Sexual Desire
Old Age, Infirmity, Dementia and Medical Opinion Did Not Demonstrate Lack of Testamentary Capacity
WHERE THERE IS A DISCREPANCY THE ORDER MUST BE CONFORMED WITH THE DECISION (FOURTH DEPT).
COUNTY COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL GROUNDS, DEFENDANT PRESENTED EVIDENCE AN ALIBI WITNESS WAS NOT INTERVIEWED; A WITNESS’S RECANTATION WAS PROPERLY FOUND UNBELIEVABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF CONTRACT AND DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS BROUGHT BY A DISABLED FORMER POLICE OFFICER CONCERNING GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 207-c BENEFITS PROPERLY DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THIS COMMON LAW DISSOLUTION ACTION, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO PAYMENT BY THE CORPORATION OF HIS EXPENSES FOR DEFENDING AGAINST THE CORPORATION’S COUNTERCLAIMS, AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROHIBIT THE DEFENDANTS FROM USING CORPORATE FUNDS TO DEFEND AGAINST THE COMMON LAW DISSOLUTION ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Construction Manager Not Liable Under Labor Law 241(6), Labor Law 200, or Under Common Law Negligence/No Control Over Work or Responsibility for the Premises
NO QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ICY CONDITION EXISTED BEFORE THE STORM, STORM IN PROGRESS RULE WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (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...