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
FAILURE TO PAY CONDOMINIUM COMMON CHARGES WAS A PROPER BASIS FOR EJECTION FROM THE CONDOMINIUM.
DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY IN THE GRAND JURY IDENTIFYING THE PERSON DEPICTED IN VIDEOTAPES AS THE DEFENDANT WAS ADMISSIBLE, COURT OFFERED NO OPINION WHETHER THE TESTIMONY WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONERS. RELATIVES OF PERSONS IN THE NYS DNA DATABASE, HAD STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE RESPONDENTS’ REGULATIONS ALLOWING THE RELEASE OF “FAMILIAL DNA MATCH” INFORMATION LINKING DNA FROM A CRIME SCENE TO A FAMILY, NOT AN INDIVIDUAL; THE REGULATIONS WERE BASED ON SOCIAL POLICY AND THEREFORE EXCEEDED THE REGULATORY POWERS OF THE RESPONDENT AGENCIES; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE REGULATIONS (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE CLIMBED THE LADDER FROM WHICH HE FELL, THUS PLACING THE INCIDENT OUTSIDE THE PROTECTION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ONE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THE CONTRACT WITH DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR WAS REASONABLE BECAUSE THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE COULD BE TRIGGERED BY A PARTY OVER WHICH DEFENDANT HAD NO CONTROL (FIRST DEPT).
ACTIONS PURSUANT TO NEW YORK CITY’S “FREELANCE ISN’T FREE ACT” (FIFA) WHICH ALLEGED DEFENDANTS FAILED TO PAY PLAINTIFFS-FREELANCERS SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A FALLING BEAM WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT OTHERWISE PROTECTED FROM FALLING OBJECTS; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​
Son Entitled to Remain in Deceased Mother’s Apartment​

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...