You are here: / / ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY (PANYNJ) WAS...
,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY (PANYNJ) WAS THE LESSOR OF THE PROPERTY WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION, IT WAS AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW AND, THEREFORE, WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT; ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS NOT AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, SHE WAS IN AN AREA USED TO CREATE MATERIALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, WHICH IS COVERED BY THE LABOR LAW (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), although the lessor of the property where plaintiff was injured in this Labor Law 241 (1) action, was an “owner” within the meaning of the Labor Law and therefore was a proper defendant. Although plaintiff was not injured at the construction site, she was injured where materials were being prepared for use in the construction:

PANYNJ failed to establish its entitlement to summary judgment, as the record presents issues of fact as to whether PANYNJ was liable to plaintiff under Labor Law § 241(6). Although PANYNJ leased control of the property to RHCT and transferred responsibility for the maintenance of the terminal to RHCT, PANYNJ was nevertheless the owner of property for purposes of Labor Law § 241(6). The operating agreement between PANYNJ and RHCT permitted RHCT to use the property, and set out conditions on RHCT’s use of the property. The agreement also set forth the scope and manner of the work to be performed and provided that RHCT was required to provide PANYNJ with a monthly profit and loss report. The general manager for PANYNJ testified that RHCT was required to obtain PANYNJ’s consent to sublicense any portion of the property. Additionally, under the purchase order between Tutor Perini and TBTA, the owner of the bridge project, PANYNJ was to be paid a port security charge, among other charges.

As a result, the evidence created a sufficient nexus between PANYNJ and the project, and thus between PANYNJ and plaintiff, to support an imposition of liability under Labor Law § 241(6) … . Plaintiff’s task of grinding bevels on the deck panels to be installed on the bridge also falls under the Labor Law because the protections of the statute extend to areas where materials or equipment are being prepared to be used in construction … .Musse v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 2022 NY Slip Op 06171, First Dept 11-3-22

Practice Point: Although defendant was a lessor of the property where plaintiff was injured in this Labor Law 241(6) action, it was an “owner” within the meaning of the Labor Law and therefore was a proper defendant. Even though plaintiff was not injured at the construction site, the Labor Law applies because she was injured in an area used to prepare materials for the construction site.

 

You might also like
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) (FIRST DEPT).
SHAREHOLDERS’ DERIVATIVE ACTION IS EQUITABLE IN NATURE, MOTION TO STRIKE DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
PLAINTIFF, AS A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE AGREEMENT, HAD STANDING TO BRING THE BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, DESPITE THE BOILERPLATE EXCLUSION OF THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES (SECOND DEPT).
INDICTMENT COUNT CHARGING 20 INDIVIDUAL INSTANCES OF CONTEMPT WAS DUPLICITOUS, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE DECEDENT WAS ADVANCING TOWARD DEFENDANT, THROWING PUNCHES AND TRYING TO GRAB THE GUN DEFENDANT WAS HOLDING (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS TOLD TO PAINT ONLY WHERE HE COULD REACH WITHOUT THE LADDER IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
INTENT REQUIREMENT OF ATTEMPTED GRAND LARCENY DOES NOT ATTACH TO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, GRAND LARCENY COUNTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED OR REDUCED BASED ON THE GRAND JURY EVIDENCE WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE EVIDENCE OF THE INTENT TO STEAL PROPERTY OF A CERTAIN VALUE (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS CROSSWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE FACT THAT THE MUNICIPALITY REPAIRED THE AREA FIVE MONTHS BEFORE DID NOT CONSTITUTE AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY, INFOR, CONTRACTED FOR THE WORK BEING DONE AT THE... ALTHOUGH THE FAILURE TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT...