You are here: / / Agents of Property Owner Can Be Liable Under Labor Law 240(1)

Agents of Property Owner Can Be Liable Under Labor Law 240(1)

In reversing a verdict after trial, the Second Department noted that the Labor Law imposes liability upon the agents of the property owner, as well as the owner and general contractor:

In addition to owners and general contractors, Labor Law § 240(1) imposes liability upon agents of the property owner who have the ability to control the activity which brought about the injury … . * * * In light of the trial evidence, the jury should have been instructed to determine whether the defendants were acting as the homeowner’s agent, with the authority to supervise and control the injured plaintiff’s work on the roof … . Accordingly, since the error was not harmless a new trial is required… . Arto v Cairo Constr Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 05863, Second Dept 9-18-13

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER VIOLATED THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND THEREBY OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO ALLEGEDLY FELL OVER A CABLE ON THE SIDEWALK.
Church Had No Special Relationship With Plaintiff, Church Had No Authority to Exercise Control Over Conduct of Man Who Injured Plaintiff/Therefore Church Did Not Owe Plaintiff a Duty of Care
ALTHOUGH MOTHER WAS GENERALLY AWARE FATHER HAD MOVED TO DELAWARE, FATHER DID NOT SPECIFY AN AGENT FOR SERVICE AS REQUIRED BY THE FAMILY COURT ACT; THEREFORE SERVICE OF MOTHER’S OBJECTIONS TO THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S ORDER AT FATHER’S LAST KNOWN ADDRESS WAS PROPER (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant’s Motion for a Judgment as a Matter of Law, Made Prior to the Close of Plaintiff’s Case, Was Premature and Should Not Have Been Granted Irrespective of the Improbability of Plaintiff’s Ultimate Success
$1.5 MILLION VERDICT AFFIRMED, PLAINTIFF, A 72-YEAR-OLD WOMAN, WAS INJURED WHEN THE BUS SHE HAD JUST BOARDED ACCELERATED QUICKLY CAUSING HER TO FALL, INJURING HER HEAD, BACK, NERVES AND KNEE (SECOND DEPT).
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BASED ON A FINDING THE MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF THE PLAINTIFF WAS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE HIS PATERNITY HAD NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED AT THE TIME THE PETITION WAS BROUGHT; THE PETITION ADEQUATELY ALLEGED PATERNITY WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY A DNA TEST (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE FIRST FORECLOSURE ACTION COMMENCED IN 2009 WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY DISMISSED, IT WAS NEVER ABANDONED PURSANT TO CPLR 3216; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS NOT TRIGGERED AND THE MOTION TO RESTORE THE 2009 ACTION TO THE CALENDAR IN 2018, AFTER THE SECOND (2015) FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (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

Husband’s Contribution to Purchase of Home by Wife’s Parents Constituted... Defendant Did Not Consent to Entry of Police Into His Home—the Police...