You are here: / / Construction Manager Not Liable Under Labor Law 241(6), Labor Law 200,...

Construction Manager Not Liable Under Labor Law 241(6), Labor Law 200, or Under Common Law Negligence/No Control Over Work or Responsibility for the Premises

Over a dissent, the Fourth Department determined a construction manager was not liable as an agent of the owner under Labor Law 241(6) because the manager did not control the activity which resulted in the injury.  In addition the court determined the Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action should hav been dismissed:

A construction manager may be liable as an agent of the owner if “the manager had the ability to control the activity which brought about the injury” … . “ ‘Defendant established as a matter of law that it was not an agent of the owner because the owner had not delegated to it the authority to supervise and control plaintiff’s work’ ” … . Pursuant to the express terms of the contract between defendant and the District, defendant “had no control over or responsibility for the safety of the workers at the construction site” … . The deposition testimony and affidavits submitted by defendant established that defendant acted in accordance with its authority under the contract, i.e., coordinating the schedules of the contractors and ensuring that their work complied with the requirements of the construction documents, and did nothing more. * * *

“Where the alleged defect or dangerous condition arises from the contractor’s methods and the owner exercises no supervisory control over the operation, no liability attaches to the owner under the common law or under Labor Law § 200” … . On the other hand, where the “ ‘plaintiff’s injuries stem not from the manner in which the work was being performed[ ] but, rather, from a dangerous condition on the premises, [an owner or] general contractor may be liable in common-law negligence and under Labor Law § 200 if it has control over the work site and actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition’  … . Regardless of which theory applies here, defendant was not an agent of the owner and “was not responsible either for the performance of [plaintiff’s] work or the premises on which that work was undertaken” … . Hargrave…v LeChase Construction Services LLC, 1373, 4th Dept. 3-21-14

 

You might also like
CODEFENDANT, WHO TESTIFIED AGAINST DEFENDANT, AND DEFENDANT REPRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF THE SAME FIRM; IN THIS SITUATION AN INQUIRY TO ENSURE DEFENDANT IS AWARE OF ALL THE FACTS AND CONSENTS IS REQUIRED; MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING.
AN ACTION AGAINST A CORPORATION AND AN ACTION AGAINST INDIVIDUAL PRINCIPALS OF THE CORPORATION DO NOT HAVE AN “IDENTITY OF PARTIES” WHICH WOULD ALLOW DISMISSAL OF ONE OF THE COMPLAINTS; TEXT MESSAGES DO NOT SUPPORT DISMISSAL OF A COMPLAINT BASED ON “DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE;” THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONVERSION; THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE CONTEMPT FINDING AND THE $535,000 FINE WERE BASED ON AN ORDER WHICH SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A BUILDING MAINTENANCE WORKER, FELL FROM AN 8-FOOT UNSECURED LADDER WHEN ATTEMPTING TO REMOVE A BIRD’S NEST FROM A GUTTER; THE ACTIVITY WAS NOT ROUTINE CLEANING AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE JUDGE’S FAILURE TO READ THE NOTE FROM THE JURY VERBATIM WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL OF DEFENDANT’S MURDER CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS BROUGHT TO THE HOSPITAL PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW AFTER THREATENING FAMILY MEMBERS AND KILLING A DOG; DEFENDANTS RELEASED PLAINTIFF THE SAME DAY AND PLAINTIFF KILLED THE FAMILY MEMBERS; PLAINTIFF ENTERED A PLEA OF NOT RESPONSIBLE BY REASON OF MENTAL ILLNESS; THE RULE PROHIBITING A PLAINTIFF FROM TAKING ADVANTAGE OF HIS OWN WRONG DID NOT APPLY AND DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FOURTH DEPT).
PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NEGLECT PETITION WAS PROPERLY MAILED TO MOTHER AND MOTHER PRESENTED EVIDENCE REBUTTING THE PROCESS SERVER’S AFFIDAVIT; A HEARING ON WHETHER MOTHER WAS PROPERLY SERVED IS REQUIRED (FOURTH DEPT).
COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PRIMA FACIE TORT, ELEMENTS EXPLAINED (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

City-Judge Pay Disparity Justified by Population of Cities Requirements for a Negligence Action Against a Municipality (Based Upon Personal...