You are here: / / SUBTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT...
,

SUBTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION AND THE AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 200/COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION.

The Second Department determined defendant general contractor (Metro) was not entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action, but was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action. Plaintiff was injured when the knot on a rope he was tied to while pushing snow off a roof gave way and he fell three stories. The decision illustrates the subtle difference between the amount of supervisory control necessary to hold a general contractor liable under Labor Law 240(1) and the greater amount of supervisory control necessary to hold a general contractor liable under Labor Law 200 and common law negligence:

 

The failure of an owner or an agent of the owner “to furnish or erect suitable devices to protect workers when work is being performed” results in absolute liability against that owner or the owner’s agent under the statute … , and the duty to provide a suitable safety device under Labor Law § 240(1), moreover, is nondelegable … . A general contractor is not considered a statutory agent of the property owner for Labor Law § 240(1) liability purposes, unless that contractor had the authority to supervise and control significant aspects of the construction project, such as safety, at the time of the accident … . …

… Metro was [demonstrated to be] a statutory agent of the property owner on the construction project through the submission of Metro’s admission that it was hired by the property owners as the general contractor on the project, and evidence that Metro undertook general contractor duties by coordinating and supervising the project, and hiring and paying subcontractors… . …

Where, as here, “a claim arises out of alleged defects or dangers in the methods or materials of the work, recovery against the owner or general contractor cannot be had under Labor Law § 200 unless it is shown that the party to be charged had the authority to supervise or control the performance of the work” … . “A defendant has the authority to supervise or control the work for purposes of Labor Law § 200 when that defendant bears the responsibility for the manner in which the work is performed” … . However, ” [t]he right to generally supervise the work, stop the contractor’s work if a safety violation is noted, or to ensure compliance with safety regulations and contract specifications is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200 or for common-law negligence'” … . Sanchez v Metro Bldrs. Corp., 2016 NY Slip Op 00957, 2nd Dept 2-10-16

 

LABOR LAW (GENERAL CONTRACTOR, SUBTLE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) VERSUS A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION)/NEGLIGENCE (GENERAL CONTRACTOR, SUBTLE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) VERSUS A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION)/GENERAL CONTRACTOR (SUBTLE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL NECESSARY TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 240(1) VERSUS A LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION)

 

You might also like
RATHER THAN DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE NECESSARY PARTIES, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED THAT THE NECESSARY PARTIES BE SUMMONED; THE COURT’S POWER TO SUMMON NECESSARY PARTIES IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE RUNNING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; ONLY THE SUMMONED NECESSARY PARTIES THEMSELVES HAVE STANDING TO RAISE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
THE LABOR LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION ALLOWING A WORKER TO SUE FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, AND ATTORNEY’S FEES BECAUSE THE WORKER WAS PAID BIWEEKLY, NOT WEEKLY AS REQUIRED BY LABOR LAW 191 (SECOND DEPT).
JUDGE CONDUCTED EXCESSIVE QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES, NEW TRIAL WITH A DIFFERENT JUDGE ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE IMPOUNDMENT OF DEFENDANT’S CAR AND THE INVENTORY SEARCH WERE LAWFUL; SEIZED EVIDENCE SUPPRESSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant’s 440.46 Motion for Resentencing Should Not Have Been Denied
FOUNDATION FOR OPINION EVIDENCE OUTSIDE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S FIELD WAS NOT LAID, DEFENDANT SURGEON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE ISSUES OF NEGLIGENCE AND PROXIMATE CAUSE WERE NOT INTERTWINED; THE VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT BUT THAT THE NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE; IN RESPONSE TO A JURY NOTE, THE JUDGE PROPERLY TOLD THEM THEY COULD FIND THAT THE ACCIDENT DID NOT HAPPEN (SECOND DEPT).
THE EXPERT DISCLOSURE COMBINED WITH THE BILL OF PARTICULARS GAVE SUFFICIENT NOTICE OF THE NATURE OF THE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S OPINION; THE TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED (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

DEFENDANT FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY ADDRESS ALL THEORIES OF RECOVERY ALLEGED IN... FAILURE TO ADDRESS EVERY ELEMENT OF THE THEORIES OF RECOVERY ALLEGED IN THE...