You are here: / / THE TOWN CONTRACTED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS...
,

THE TOWN CONTRACTED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED; DEFENDANT CONTRACTED WITH THE TOWN TO HANDLE BIDS FOR THE PROJECT; DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN AGENT FOR THE TOWN AND THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6), 200 AND NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court in this Labor Law 240(1), 241(6), 200 and negligence action, determined the defendant was not an agent for the town which had contracted for the work plaintiff was doing when injured. Defendant had contracted with the town to prepare a bid package, solicit bids, obtain grant money and review bids for the construction project:

“An agency relationship for the purposes of section 240 (1) arises only when work is delegated to a third party who obtains the authority to supervise and control the job” … . “Thus, unless a defendant has supervisory control and authority over the work being done when the plaintiff is injured, there is no statutory agency conferring liability under the Labor Law” … . Pursuant to the express terms of the contract between the Town and the nonparty contractor—i.e., plaintiff’s employer—as well as the terms of the contract between the Town and defendant, defendant had no control over the means or methods of the performance of the work by the contractor, and it also had no control over safety precautions for the workers at the construction site … .

For those same reasons, it was error to deny defendant’s motion with respect to the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action … . Defendant also established that it did not actually direct or control the work that brought about plaintiff’s injuries, and plaintiff raised no issue of fact with respect thereto. Therefore, it was error to deny defendant’s motion with respect to the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action … . Smith v MDA Consulting Engrs., PLLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 06389, Fourth Dept 11-10-22

Practice Point: In order for a party to be liable as an agent for the owner in a Labor Law action, the party must have some control over the work the injured plaintiff was engaged in. Here the defendant was in charge of bids for the town’s construction project and exercised no control over the work. The Labor Law causes of action against defendant should have been dismissed.

 

You might also like
Five-Year Look-Back Applied/Pension Properly Included in Determining Applicant’s Income In Spite of Unexplained Cessation of Payments
A MUNICIPALITY CANNOT BE SUED FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION, TRAINING AND SUPERVISION BASED UPON EMPLOYEES’ ACTIONS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT; THE PROPER THEORY IS RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERLY ASSESSED 80 POINTS FOR CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IN THIS SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION ACT (SORA) RISK LEVEL PROCEEDING, CRITERIA EXPLAINED, DETERMINATION REVERSED HOWEVER BECAUSE COUNTY COURT DID NOT CONSIDER DOWNWARD DEPARTURE REQUEST (FOURTH DEPT).
DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR FAILING TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY SCHEDULING ORDER (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THAT, IF IT WAS ERROR TO ADMIT TESTIMONY THAT THE RAPE VICTIM WAS AWARE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN INCARCERATED, THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE EVIDENCE HAD NO PROBATIVE VALUE BECAUSE THE VICTIM’S STATE OF MIND WAS NOT IN ISSUE AND ITS INTRODUCTION WAS THERFORE HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT THREW BAGS OF COCAINE ONTO THE FLOOR IN PLAIN SIGHT OF POLICE OFFICERS, NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE CHARGE.
THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT DID NOT JUSTIFY THE OFFICER’S ENTRY OF THE RESIDENCE AND SEIZURE OF A SWITCHBLADE; SWITCHBLADE AND STATEMENTS RELATING TO THE SWITCHBLADE SUPPRESSED; IN ADDITION, AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT WAS DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
SOPHISTICATED INTERMEDIARY DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SILICA INHALATION FAILURE TO WARN PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO WARN PLAINTIFF EMPLOYEE, DESPITE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGER ON THE PART OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER (FOURTH 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 DEFENDANT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE... THE NOTE REQUIRED THE APPLICATION OF FLORIDA SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL LAW...