You are here: / / DEFENDANT, AN OUT OF POSSESSION LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY WHERE PLAINTIFF...
,

DEFENDANT, AN OUT OF POSSESSION LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED, WAS NOT AN OWNER WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant demonstrated it was not an owner of the property where plaintiff was injured and therefore was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action. Defendant had leased the property from the state and then subleased the property to a non-party (EDGE). EDGE hired Jersen, the construction company for which the injured plaintiff worked:

It is well established that, for purposes of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) liability, “the term owner’ is not limited to the titleholder of the property where the accident occurred and encompasses a [party] who has an interest in the property and who fulfilled the role of owner by contracting to have work performed for [its] benefit’ “… . ” [The owner] is the party who, as a practical matter, has the right to hire or fire subcontractors and to insist that proper safety practices are followed’ “… . Thus, “[t]he key factor in determining whether a non-titleholder is an owner’ is the right to insist that proper safety practices were followed and it is the right to control the work that is significant, not the actual exercise or nonexercise of control’ ” … . …

In his affidavit, Jersen’s project manager averred that defendant was neither a party to nor involved with the negotiation of the construction contract between EDGE and Jersen; the project manager never saw any employees or representatives of defendant on site during the project; Jersen employees were not permitted to take orders from anyone other than an authorized Jersen representative; and defendant had no authority or control over Jersen employees working on the project. Those averments are consistent with the construction contract, which defined EDGE as the “[o]wner” and Jersen as the “[c]ontractor,” and provided that Jersen, as the “[c]ontractor,” was solely responsible for instituting and supervising all safety precautions and protections. Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the mere fact that the sublease between defendant and EDGE required defendant’s approval of the plans and specifications for the project work does not raise a material issue of fact where, as here, defendant did not contract to have the project work performed and the sublease “did not vest [defendant] with authority to determine which contractors to hire, . . . control the [project] work or . . . insist that proper safety practices [be] followed’ ” … . Ritter v Fort Schuyler Mgt. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 00769, Fourth Dept 2-1-19

 

You might also like
Disorderly Conduct as a Family Offense Needn’t Occur in a Public Place
Proof Requirements Re: Whether An Account Is Entirely Marital Property Explained
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS WERE CHARGED WITH VIOLATIONS OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT STEMMING FROM THE RELEASE OF VIDEO CLIPS DEPICTING SKITS PERFORMED AT A ROAST HELD BY A FRATERNITY; THE SKITS INCLUDED RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS SLURS AND SIMULATED SEXUAL ACTIVITY AND VIOLENCE; THE 4TH DEPARTMENT HELD THAT THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES COMPORTED WITH THE RULES, THE CODE VIOLATIONS WERE SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE AND THE SANCTIONS DID NOT SHOCK ONE’S SENSE OF FAIRNESS; A STRONG DISSENT ARGUED THE CODE PROVISION PURPORTING TO PROHIBIT SPEECH WHICH “THREATENS” THE “MENTAL HEALTH” OF A PERSON IS SO VAGUE THAT IT CAN NOT SUPPORT A CONVICTION (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT COUNTY CORONER TOOK PLAINTIFF’S SON’S BRAIN MATTER FOR USE IN TRAINING CADAVER DOGS AND FATHER SUED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER COUNTY OBLIGATED UNDER THE PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW TO DEFEND AND INDEMNIFY THE CORONER (I.E., WAS THE CORONER ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT?) (FOURTH DEPT).
Oral Evidence in Quantum Meruit Case Rejected by Appellate Court
Parole Violation Did Not Preclude Application for Resentencing Under the Drug Law Reform Act
Dismissal as Time-Barred Is a Dismissal On the Merits for Purposes of Res Judicata
DOCUMENT ALLOWING ACCESS TO PLAINTIFF’S LAND OVER DEFENDANT’S LAND DID NOT INCLUDE ANY WORDS OF PERMANENCY, THE DOCUMENT CREATED A REVOCABLE LICENSE NOT AN EASEMENT (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

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE LET A PARTY DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF SUPERVISED... TRIAL COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON ASSAULT THIRD AS A LESSER...