You are here: / / ALTHOUGH A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER IS GENERALLY NOT LIABLE FOR INJURIES TO...
, ,

ALTHOUGH A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER IS GENERALLY NOT LIABLE FOR INJURIES TO A WORKER UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) OR 241(6), HERE THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER, BY CONTRACT, WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR SAFETY AT THE WORKSITE AND SUPERVISED THE WORK; THEREFORE THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER WAS A STATUTORY AGENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND POTENTIALLY LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the construction manager, Tishman, was the property owner’s statutory agent in charge of safety at the worksite. Therefore Tishman could be liable for injury to a worker pursuant to Labor Law 240(1):

“A construction manager of a work site is generally not responsible for injuries under Labor Law . . . [§ ] 240(1) . . . or § 241(6) unless it functions as an agent of the property owner or general contractor in circumstances where it has the ability to control the activity which brought about the injury” … . “The label given a defendant, whether ‘construction manager’ or ‘general contractor,’ is not determinative” … . “Instead, the core inquiry is whether the defendant had the ‘authority to supervise or control the activity bringing about the injury so as to enable it to avoid or correct the unsafe condition'” … .

Here, in support of his motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted the construction management services contract, which charged Tishman with, inter alia, enforcing subcontractors’ compliance with safety requirements and taking precautions to minimize the risk of injuries. The contract further gave Tishman the right to choose the means and methods of construction. Although Tishman did not directly supervise or control the plaintiff’s work, Tishman’s safety manager for the project testified at his deposition that he was “in charge of safety at . . . [the] project full-time.” In addition, a foreperson for another trade testified at his deposition that Tishman would correct other workers who were performing their work in an unsafe manner. Under these circumstances, Tishman was a statutory agent of DDC and was, therefore, potentially liable for the plaintiff’s alleged injuries under Labor Law § 240(1) … . Weekes v Tishman Tech. Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 02959, Second Dept 5-14-25

Practice Point: Although a construction manager is generally not liable to an injured worker under Labor Law 240(1) or 241(6), here the construction manager was, by contract, a statutory agent of the property owner responsible for the supervision of the work and the safety of the workers. Statutory agents of the property owner or general contractor are potentially liable to injured workers under Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6).

 

You might also like
COURT HAD DISCRETION TO ACCEPT A BELATED ORDER OF REFERENCE SUBMITTED AFTER THE 60-DAY DEADLINE IN 22 NYCRR 202.48 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY TO A DISCRETIONARY ORDER (SECOND DEPT).
PHOTOGRAPHS OF UNEVEN SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL WERE PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING AN ACTION TO VACATE THE ADOPTION OF HER CHILD BY HER FORMER HUSBAND PURSUANT TO THE INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT (ICWA) BECAUSE THE ACT ONLY APPLIES TO CHILDREN REMOVED FROM A PARENT’S CUSTODY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A SWIMMING OFFICIAL, SLIPPED ON WATER ON A POOL DECK AT AN INDOOR SWIMMING FACILITY; THE WATER ON THE POOL DECK CAME FROM AN OVERHEAD DEHUMIDIFICATION SYSTEM, NOT FROM SPLASHES FROM THE POOL; THE WATER WAS NOT NECESSARILY INCIDENTAL TO THE USE OF THE POOL AND THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT). ​
COURT REJECTS ARGUMENT DEFENDANT DID NOT CONSENT TO THE RELEASE TO THE PROSECUTION OF RECORDINGS OF HIS PHONE CALLS FROM JAIL.
Court Has No Power to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute in Absence of 90-Demand to File and Serve Note of Issue
DNA Evidence Not Testimonial—No Denial of Right to Confrontation
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE REQUIRED BUSINESS RECORDS WERE NOT SUBMITTED (SECOND 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 AFFIANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE MAILING PROCEDURES... THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE WAS REVERSED ON APPEAL; THE DEFENDANT IN...