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
THE CLUB’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE DRAM SHOP ACT CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
“Criminal Enterprise” Does Not Require Continuity of Criminal Participants
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE NOTICE OF THE WATER ON THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL, WHETHER PLAINTIFF HAD PRIOR NOTICE OF THE CONDITION IS A COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ISSUE THAT DOES NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE APPLIES IN THIS ELEVATOR-DOOR INJURY CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE APPLIES EVEN WHERE A NEW ACTION HAS BEEN COMMENCED AND CONSOLIDATED WITH A PRIOR ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE ACTION, CONTACT WITH A HANGING LIVE ELECTRIC WIRE, DEFENDANTS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE.
“Grouping of Contacts” Analysis to Determine Which State’s Law Applies
School’s Knowledge that Infant-Plaintiff Was Being Taunted and Bullied Did Not Constitute Notice that Another Student Would Act Violently Toward Infant-Plaintiff—Supervision Could Not Have Prevented the Sudden Action by the Student Who Pushed Infant-Plaintiff

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...