You are here: / / THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE LABOR LAW 241(6)...

THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION DID NOT APPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S DEMOLITION-WORK-INJURY; THE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND WAS NOT, THEREFORE, LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Industrial Code provision which was the basis of the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action did not apply to plaintiff’s demolition-work-injury and defendant general contractor (Lad) did not exercise supervisory control over defendant’s work and was not therefore liable under Labor Law 200:

… [T]he cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) is predicated on Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(c), which mandates continuing inspections during hand demolition operations to detect hazards “resulting from weakened or deteriorated floors or walls or from loosened material.” … [Defendant] established …the inapplicability of this provision by demonstrating that the hazard arose from the plaintiff’s actual performance of the demolition work itself, and not structural instability caused by the progress of the demolition … . …

“Although property owners [and general contractors] often have a general authority to oversee the progress of the work, mere general supervisory authority at a work site for the purpose of overseeing the progress of the work and inspecting the work product is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200” or for common-law negligence … . “A defendant has the authority to supervise or control the work for the purposes of Labor Law § 200 when that defendant bears the responsibility for the manner in which the work is performed” … .

Here, Lad established, prima facie, that it did not possess the authority to supervise or control the means and methods of the plaintiff’s work … . Flores v Crescent Beach Club, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 04901, Second Dept 8-10-22

Practice Point: Here the cited Industrial Code provision did not apply to plaintiff’s Labor Law 241(6) demolition-work-injury cause of action and Labor Law 200 did not apply to defendant general contractor which did not exercise supervisory control over plaintiff’s work.

 

You might also like
CROSS MOTION TO COMPEL ACCEPTANCE OF A LATE ANSWER PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
REQUESTS FOR RECORDS OF SURGICAL PROCEDURES PERFORMED ON NON-PARTIES AND RECORDS OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST DEFENDANT SURGEON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED.
THE CUSTODY ARRANGEMENTS SET FORTH IN A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MODIFIED IN THE ABSENCE OF A HEARING AND FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED ON INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE UNTESTED BY THE PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).
FIREFIGHTER RULE DID NOT PRECLUDE ACTION BY POLICE OFFICER STEMMING FROM A FALL AT THE OFFICE; GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW 205-e ACTION PROPERLY BASED ON ALLEGED VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 27-a.
Failure to Inquire About Defendant’s Understanding of Intoxication Defense Required Vacation of Guilty Plea
DEFENDANT’S UNTIMELY ANSWER WAS REJECTED BY PLAINTIFF BUT PLAINTIFF DEEMED THE ANSWER TO BE A NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; DEFENDANT DID NOT OBJECT; AN APPEARANCE IS THE EQUIVALENT OF SERVICE OF A SUMMONS; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAIVED THE LACK-OF-PERSONAL-JURISDICTION DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
GENERALLY A HOMEOWNER WHO DOES NOT DIRECT THE WORK ON THE HOME CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR A LADDER-FALL PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240(1); BUT THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION DOES NOT APPLY WHEN THE WORK IS RELATED TO A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE; HERE THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE PROPERTY WAS TO BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA, AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLEA OFFER, RAISED THE POSSIBILITY THAT DEFENDANT ACCEPTED THE PLEA OFFER TO MAKE SURE HIS BAIL WOULD NOT BE INCREASED; DEFENDANT WAS WORRIED ABOUT BEING ABLE TO FIND CARE FOR HIS THREE-YEAR-OLD SON; BAIL SHOULD NOT BE A CONSIDERATION IN PLEA NEGOTIATIONS; THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (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

TO AVOID DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (C) THE PLAINTIFF NEED ONLY TAKE PROCEEDINGS... DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT A...