You are here: / / THE REACH OF LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) AND THE MEANING OF “OWNER”...

THE REACH OF LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) AND THE MEANING OF “OWNER” AS USED IN THAT STATUTE EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant 2 Big Meadows’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action should not have been granted. The court explained the reach of liability under Labor Law 241 (6) and the meaning of the term “owner” as used in the statute:

Liability under Labor Law § 241(6) extends to “[a]ll contractors and owners and their agents . . . when constructing or demolishing buildings or doing any excavating in connection therewith.” “[T]he burden placed upon a defendant seeking summary judgment on the ground that it is not an owner is a heavy one” … . * * *

… “[T]he term ‘owner’ is not limited to the titleholder of the property where the accident occurred and encompasses a person ‘who has an interest in the property and who fulfilled the role of owner by contracting to have work performed for his [or her] benefit'” … . “[T]he critical factor in determining whether a party is an ‘owner’ is whether it ‘possessed the right to insist that proper safety practices were followed; that is, the right to control the work'” … . The evidentiary submissions furnished by 2 Big Meadow in support of its motion for summary judgment did not eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether 2 Big Meadow, which clearly benefitted from the renovation of its property, was involved in contracting to have the construction project performed or had the authority to insist on proper safety practices. Cruz v 1142 Bedford Ave., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 08220, Second Dept 3-17-21

 

You might also like
BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE PROPERLY SUBSTITUTED FOR PLAINTIFF IN A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO LIST THE ACTION AS AN ASSET IN HIS VOLUNTARY PETITION FOR CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY (SECOND DEPT).
Burden Is On Parent to Demonstrate Exception to Statutory Relief from Making Reasonable Efforts to Reunite
PLAINTIFF INJURED HIS NECK ATTEMPTING TO THROW A HEAVY HOSE TO AN AREA 15 TO 20 FEET ABOVE HIM, THE INJURY WAS NOT CAUSED BY AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).
Sua Sponte Dismissal for Lack of Standing Reversed—Defendants Did Not Raise the Defense and Therefore Waived It—Lack of Standing is Not a Jurisdictional Defect
ALTHOUGH THE JURY WAS PROPERLY INSTRUCTED TO ACQUIT ON ALL COUNTS IF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE APPLIED, THE VERDICT SHEET DID NOT MENTION THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE WHICH MAY HAVE GIVEN THE JURY THE IMPRESSION THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY FOR EACH COUNT, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT HAD STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT PROOF THE ALLONGE WAS FIRMLY AFFIXED TO THE NOTE AS REQUIRED BY UCC 3-202 (SECOND DEPT).
THE POLICE OFFICERS’ DECIDING NOT TO ARREST PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S SON AFTER AN ALTERCATION BETWEEN HER AND HER SON WAS AN EXERCISE OF DISCRETION PROTECTED BY GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY; THEREFORE THE CITY WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ATTACK BY HER SON RESULTING IN THE DEATH OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT (SECOND DEPT).
Lack of Standing Not a Jurisdictional Defect, Sua Sponte Dismissal of Complaint Not Warranted

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 COUNTY POLICE OFFICER’S STATEMENT TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT TO... PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS AFTER...