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
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO CONSIDER THEORY OF LIABILITY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
PRODUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL NOTE AND ENDORSEMENTS WAS “MATERIAL AND NECESSARY” TO THE DETERMINATION WHETHER THE BANK HAS STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE APPLICATION TO TREAT THE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO FILE A CLAIM (NOI) AS A TIMELY FILED CLAIM IN THIS PRISON STABBING CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF INJURED WHEN, AFTER CONSUMING ALCOHOL, HE DOVE INTO A SHALLOW PART OF DEFENDANT’S POOL, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE A DISPUTE AMONG BROTHERS ABOUT OWNERSHIP OF REAL PROPERTY WAS RESOLVED BY AN OPEN COURT STIPULATION (CONTRACT) WHICH CANNOT BE INVALIDATED ABSENT FRAUD, COLLUSION, MISTAKE OR ACCIDENT; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING BEFORE APPROVING THE SUBSEQUENT APPORTIONMENT OF THE PROPERTY BY A RECEIVER WHICH WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).
THE TIP OF PLAINTIFF THIRD-GRADER’S FINGER WAS SEVERED WHEN A DOOR IN THE SCHOOL BUILDING SLAMMED SHUT; THE DEFENDANT-SCHOOL’S (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S [DOE’S]) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE DOOR WAS NOT DEFECTIVE, THE SCHOOL HAD NO NOTICE OF A PROBLEM WITH THE DOOR, SUPERVISION COULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED THE ACCIDENT, AND NYC IS NOT LIABLE FOR AN ACCIDENT ON SCHOOL (DOE) PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN A POTENTIAL LABOR LAW 200, 240 (1), 241 (6) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
DNA FOUND ON THE MURDER VICTIM’S BODY WAS LINKED TO THE DEFENDANT WHO WAS ARRESTED TWO YEARS AFTER THE MURDER; THERE WAS NO OTHER EVIDENCE CONNECTING DEFENDANT TO THE VICTIM OR TO THE AREA WHERE THE VICTIM WAS FOUND; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT, OVER AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT, FOUND THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CONVICTION (SECOND 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...