You are here: / / THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY, INFOR, CONTRACTED FOR THE WORK BEING DONE AT...
,

THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY, INFOR, CONTRACTED FOR THE WORK BEING DONE AT THE TIME OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION; THEREFORE INFOR WAS AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW AND WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the lessee of the property (Infor) was a proper party in this Labor Law 240(1) action because it had contracted for the work done at the time of plaintiff’s injury:

Plaintiff claims he was drilling metal tracks onto a wall when the Baker scaffold on which he was standing overturned, causing him to fall and sustain injuries. 635 owned the building in which plaintiff was working, and defendant SL Green Realty Corp. (SL Green) was 635’s managing agent. Infor leased the premises from 635, and retained JRM as the general contractor to perform construction work. JRM, in turn, retained Montec and nonparty Premier Builders, Inc., plaintiff’s employer, as subcontractors to perform various aspects of the work. * * *

The Labor Law § 240(1) claim should be reinstated against Infor, as the court incorrectly concluded that Infor was not a proper Labor Law defendant. Although Infor leased the premises from 635, it may still be held liable as an “owner” under the statute because it contracted for the construction work being performed at the time of plaintiff’s accident … . For the same reasons that plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment against 635 and JMR, plaintiff’s motion for partial summary on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against Infor should be granted, and Infor’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim against it should be denied. Otero v 635 Owner LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 06172, First Dept 11-3-22

Practice Point: A lessee may be considered a property “owner” in a Labor Law 240(1) action when the lessee contracted for the work being done when the plaintiff was injured.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT A NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS OR PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT).
THE PROMISE TO REPAY THE LOAN WAS NOT UNCONDITIONAL BUT RATHER THE DEFENDANT’S HAVING AVAILABLE CASH TO REPAY THE LOAN WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT, BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANT HAD AVAILABLE CASH, ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY’S RAISING AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN A RELATED FEDERAL ACTION.
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS INJURED WHILE REPAIRING AN ESCALATOR, COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF THE ESCALATOR’S SUDDEN START-UP, THE MOTION TO COMPEL HIM TO SUPPLEMENT HIS ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES WAS PROPERLY DENIED; PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTIONS CAN BE PROVEN BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE; AT THIS STAGE PLAINTIFF CAN TESTIFY UNDER OATH THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF THE UNEXPECTED START-UP (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT’S TRUCK WAS IN THE WRONG LANE, THE POSITION OF THE TRUCK FURNISHED A CONDITION FOR THE ACCIDENT BUT WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT, PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS WEAVING IN AND OUT OF TRAFFIC ON HIS MOTORCYCLE AT HIGH SPEED WHEN HE STRUCK A CAR, AND WAS THROWN UNDER THE TRUCK (FIRST DEPT).
A MOVING CAR IS A PLACE WHERE THE VICTIM IS NOT LIKELY TO BE FOUND WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE KIDNAPPING STATUTE, UNDER THE FACTS, UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT WAS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE.
THE JUDGE PRONOUNCED A FELONY SENTENCE WITHOUT AN UPDATED AND COMPLETE PRESENTENCE REPORT; SENTENCE VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
ACCOUNTING CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS SHAREHOLDERS’ DERIVATIVE SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; ALTHOUGH SUA SPONTE ORDERS ARE NOT APPEALABLE, THE APPEAL WAS HEARD IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; PROPER WAY TO HANDLE A SUA SPONTE ORDER IS TO MOVE TO VACATE AND THEN APPEAL (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 ORDER DENYING A MOTION TO VACATE OR MODIFY A PRIOR ORDER DID NOT MEET THE... ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY (PANYNJ) WAS THE...