You are here: / / PLAINTIFF IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BUILDING MANAGEMENT...
,

PLAINTIFF IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE BUILDING MANAGEMENT COMPANY WAS ACTING AS THE OWNER’S AGENT OR THAT IT HAD SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY OVER THE WORK; THEREFORE SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS AGAINST THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined summary judgment in this ladder-fall case should not have been granted as against the building manager (Madison) as opposed to the building owner. Plaintiff did not demonstrate Madison was acting as the owner’s agent or that it had supervisory authority over the work. The court noted that the assumption-of-the-risk affirmative defense applies to sports activities, not Labor Law causes of action:

Labor Law § 240(1) imposes liability only on contractors, owners, or their agents. “An agency relationship for 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. Where responsibility for the activity surrounding an injury was not delegated to the third party, there is no agency liability under the statute” … . Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate, prima facie, either that Madison was the managing agent for the building or that Madison supervised or controlled any of the work being performed in the building … . Depass v Mercer Sq., LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 04363, Second Dept 8-23-23

Practice Point: In order to hold the building management company liable in this ladder-fall Labor Law 240(1) action, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate the management company was acting as the owner’s agent and had supervisory control over the work. Plaintiff failed to do so.

 

You might also like
THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS ROAD-DEFECT SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE NINE-MONTH DELAY WAS NOT EXPLAINED; THE CITIY DID NOT HAVE TIMELY NOTICE OF THE POTENTIAL LAWSUIT; AND PETITIONER DID NOT SHOW THE CITY WOULD NOT BE PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).
THE DRIVER OF THE FIRE ENGINE RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S STOPPED CAR WHILE MAKING A RIGHT TURN FROM A LANE TO THE LEFT OF PLAINTIFF; IT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED THE FIRE-ENGINE DRIVER ACTED IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE CHILD SUPPORT INCOME FOR TWO CHILDREN IN COLLEGE WAS COUNTED AS PART OF THE HOUSEHOLD INCOME, THE TWO COLLEGE STUDENTS WERE PROPERLY NOT COUNTED FOR FOOD STAMP ELIGIBILITY, THE DENIAL OF FOOD STAMPS WAS PROPER (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISION OF THE MORTGAGE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
With Regard to the Suit Against the Perpetrator, Perpetrator’s Criminal Conviction Barred Relitigation in the Wrongful Death Case Stemming from a Stabbing Outside Defendant Bar/With Regard to the Suit Against Defendant Bar, Questions of Fact Raised About the Foreseeability of the Attack, the Proximate Cause of the Injury, and the Adequacy of Defendant Bar’s Security Measures
SURROGACY CONTRACT DOES NOT DEPRIVE MOTHER OF HER PARENTAL RIGHTS.
DEFENDANT WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES OF HIS GUILTY PLEA AND DID NOT HAVE A PRACTICAL ABILITY TO OBJECT, THEREFORE AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT FOR APPEAL APPLIES, MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MOVE TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA (SECOND DEPT).
Income of Mother’s Cohabiting Fiance Should Not Have Been Considered in Determining Mother’s Entitlement to Assigned Counsel

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 IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING... HERE THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONTRACT DID NOT MAKE IT “UNMISTAKABLY CLEAR”...