You are here: / / NEITHER THE BUILDING OWNER NOR THE PROSPECTIVE BUILDING OWNER HAD SUPERVISORY...

NEITHER THE BUILDING OWNER NOR THE PROSPECTIVE BUILDING OWNER HAD SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE PREMISES OR THE WORK, INCLUDING THE WORK OF PLAINTIFF AND HIS CO-WORKER WHO APPARENTLY MOPPED THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE OWNER AND PROSPECTIVE OWNER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action against the building owner (Grand) and the prospective purchaser of the building (Empire) should have been dismissed. Plaintiff slipped and fell on a wet floor which apparently had just been mopped by a co-worker. Neither Grand nor Empire had general supervisory authority over the premises and did not supervise or control the work of plaintiff or the co-worker:

The building was owned by defendant Grand but was under a contract of sale to defendant Empire, with a closing date of February 1, 2017. Under the contract of sale, Empire was given access to the premises prior to closing to perform renovations and to stage and lease the apartments. Empire hired plaintiff’s employer Infinity to act as general contractor for the renovations. According to the record, Empire did not have any employees at the premises on the date of the accident and did not supervise Infinity’s work. Grand had no employees or agents at the premises full time, but an employee of a company related to Grand would occasionally visit the building to check that there were no problems and that everything was clean. The employee visited the building approximately four or five times, approximately twice in the four months prior to the accident, and once during construction. No one employed by Grand regularly supervised the construction ongoing at the premises. Arnold v Empire 326 Grand LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00965, First Dept 2-15-22

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF ALLEGED FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, THE ESSENCE OF THE LAWSUIT IS THE ALLEGED BREACH OF THE CONTRACTS; THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE IT IS ALLEGED THE FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT NULLIFIED THE CONTRACTS; THEREFORE THE JURY-TRIAL WAIVER PROVISIONS REMAIN ENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT). ​
PETITIONER’S APPLICATION FOR ACCESS TO RESPONDENT’S NEIGHBORING PROPERTY PURSUANT TO RPAPL 881 SHOIULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; MATTER REMITTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER LESS INTRUSIVE METHODS FOR ROOF PROTECTION OF RESPONDENT’S PROPERTY COULD BE USED TO FACILITATE FACADE WORK ON PETITIONER’S BUILDING (FIRST DEPT).
EVIDENCE OF OCCASIONAL MARIJUANA USE DID NOT SUPPORT THE ASSESSMENT OF 15 POINTS IN THIS SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING (FIRST DEPT).
Plaintiff-Resident of an Adult Care Facility Did Not Have Standing to Object to An Informal Procedure Used by the Department of Health (DOH) Re: the Inspection of Adult Care Facilities (Affording a Meeting Between the Facility and DOH Prior to the Publication of an Inspection Report)—Standing to Challenge Governmental Action Discussed in Some Depth
THE CORRECTION LAW REQUIRING A SEX OFFENDER TO VERIFY HIS OR HER ADDRESS EVERY NINETY DAYS IS VOID FOR VAGUENESS AS APPLIED TO HOMELESS SEX OFFENDERS (FIRST DEPT). ​
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FORFEITURE OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WOULD BE A CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPERMISSIBLE EXCESSIVE FINE (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S INJURY WAS CAUSED BY A TIPPING LADDER, FACTUAL ASSERTIONS IN A MEMO OF LAW OPPOSING PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PRESERVED ISSUES FOR APPEAL, PLAINTIFF-DECEDENT’S STATEMENT TO HIS WIFE IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM PROPERLY CONSIDERED AS A DECLARATION AGAINST INTEREST (FIRST DEPT).
CHARTER SCHOOLS IN NYC ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE RANDOM COVID-19 TESTS TO CITY-RESIDENT CHILDREN (FIRST 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

THE NYC HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION (HRA) WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY OF THE... SUPREME COURT, IN THE CONTEXT OF A MOTION TO DISMISS, SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED...