You are here: / / PRIME CONTRACTOR DID NOT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DID...

PRIME CONTRACTOR DID NOT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DID NOT SUPERVISE PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND DID NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THE WORKSITE, ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor law 241 (6), 200 and common law negligence action should have been granted. Plaintiff was struck by a car while working in the median of a highway. Defendant, Oakgrove, was a prime contractor with whom the injured plaintiff’s employer did not contract. And Oakgrove had no supervisory control over the plaintiff or the worksite:

​

“The owner or general contractor is not synonymous with the prime contractor . . . Generally speaking, the prime contractor for general construction (especially in State construction projects) has no authority over the other prime contractors . . . unless the prime contractor is delegated work in such a manner that it stands in the shoes of the owner or general contractor with the authority to supervise and control the work” … .

Here, Oakgrove and Foit-Albert were both prime contractors, and plaintiff’s employer contracted only with Foit-Albert. Oakgrove did not supervise or instruct plaintiff. Rather, plaintiff reported to a supervisor at Foit-Albert. Oakgrove established as a matter of law that it had no control over plaintiff or the work he was performing, and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact … . …

​

… Oakgrove … established that it did not have control over the work site at the time of plaintiff’s accident …. Thus, the court should have dismissed the Labor Law § 200 claim and common-law negligence cause of action … . Knab v Robertson, 2017 NY Slip Op 07822, Fourth Department 11-9-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PRIME CONTRACTOR DID NOT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DID NOT SUPERVISE PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND DID NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THE WORKSITE, ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/PRIME CONTRACTOR (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PRIME CONTRACTOR DID NOT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DID NOT SUPERVISE PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND DID NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THE WORKSITE, ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PRIME CONTRACTOR DID NOT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DID NOT SUPERVISE PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND DID NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THE WORKSITE, ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 241 (6) 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
A TEACHER’S ALLEGED STATEMENT TO THE PLAINTIFF THAT HE WAS AWARE OF THE SEXUAL ABUSE OF THE PLAINTIFF BY ANOTHER TEACHER OCCURRING REPEATEDLY AT SCHOOL WAS DEEMED AN ADMISSION ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE SEXUAL ABUSE WAS FORESEEABLE BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT (FOURTH DEPT).
AN ADULT GUEST’S ACT OF POURING KEROSENE ONTO AN ACTIVE FIRE IN A FIRE PIT AT DEFENDANTS’ HOME WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S BURN INJURIES; THE DISSENTER ARGUED THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A DUTY TO CONTROL THE GUEST’S BEHAVIOR WAS BREACHED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE FIRST, THIRD AND FOURTH DEPARTMENTS HAVE HELD THAT THE VIOLATION OF THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION 12 NYCRR 23-4.2 (K) WILL NOT SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION BECAUSE IT IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY SPECIFIC; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT HAS HELD THE VIOLATION OF THAT SAME PROVISION SUPPORTS A LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
THE AMENDED STATUTE CHANGING THE CRITERIA FOR NEGLECT BASED ON MARIHUANA USE WENT INTO EFFECT TWO DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING AND WAS NOT APPLIED TO THE FACTS; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS IN A TRENCH WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY THE BUCKET OF AN EXCAVATOR WHICH WAS ON THE EDGE OF THE TRENCH ABOVE HIM IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INJURY WAS THE RESULT OF THE USUAL AND ORDINARY DANGERS OF A CONSTRUCTION SITE AS OPPOSED TO A RISK CONTEMPLATED BY THE LABOR LAW (FOURTH DEPT).
UNDER THE DEALER ACT, GENERAL MOTORS WAS NOT REQUIRED TO NOTIFY PLAINTIFF CHEVROLET DEALERSHIP OF GM’S APPROVAL OF THE RELOCATION OF ANOTHER CHEVROLET DEALERSHIP IN THE SAME AREA.
HEARING REQUIRED ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUES WERE OR COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN A PRIOR MOTION TO VACATE, DEFENDANT RAISED QUESTIONS WHETHER FALSE TESTIMONY WAS GIVEN BY A POLICE OFFICER AND WHETHER EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE WAS WITHHELD FROM THE DEFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE LACK-OF-STANDING DEFENSE WAS NOT RAISED IN THE ANSWER OR THE PREANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS; IT IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT; THEREFORE THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE ACTION ON THAT GROUND (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

SUPREME COURT ERRED IN ORDERING DISCLOSURE OF SOME OF THE INSURER’S RECORDS... INJURY WHILE LIFTING A HEAVY OBJECT FROM A HORIZONTAL TO A VERTICAL POSITION...