You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY WAS AN OWNER OR AGENT...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY WAS AN OWNER OR AGENT OF THE OWNER FOR LABOR LAW PURPOSES, PROPERTY MANAGER WAS NOT LIABLE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A ROOF (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action, stemming from falling from a roof he was working on, should have been granted with respect to the property owner (Bruckner) and the general contractor (Metro). There was a question of fact whether Western, which leased the property, was an “owner” or “agent” of the owner for Labor Law purposes. However, the property manager, Ashkenazy, had no authority to supervise or control plaintiff’s work and was not liable under Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6) or 200:

An issue of fact exists as to whether Western, the lessee, was an “owner” or “agent” of the owner, for Labor Law purposes. Record evidence showing that Western was responsible for renovating the premises, including the roof, and had retained Metro as the general contractor for the renovation work, raises an issue of fact as to whether Western had the authority to supervise and control the work site … . The testimony of Western’s director of merchandising that he was not involved with the construction work is insufficient to excuse Western from liability, where he had no knowledge of, and could not testify to, the lease arrangements between Western and Bruckner, as well as the arrangement between Western and Metro … .

Ashkenazy had no involvement with the construction work, and was onsite only to check on its progress, and to ensure it did not interfere with the other tenants. The belief of its “Director of Property Management” that he may have been able to stop work at the job site “[w]ith proper notice I guess as per the lease” is too equivocal to raise an issue of fact. Because there was no evidence that Ashkenazy had authority to supervise or control the work site, the Labor Law § 240(1) claim should be dismissed against it … . Ashkenazy is also entitled to dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim because, for the same reasons, it is not an “owner” or “agent” under that statute … . Without authority to supervise or control plaintiff’s work, Ashkenazy also may not be held liable under Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence principles in this case involving the means and method of plaintiff’s work … . Reyes v Bruckner Plaza Shopping Ctr. LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 05003, First Dept 6-20-19

 

You might also like
RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD ARE POLICE OFFICER PERSONNEL RECORDS WHICH ARE EXEMPT FROM A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW REQUEST.
EXPULSION OF PETITIONER-STUDENT FROM THE PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT PROGRAM “SHOCKED [THE COURT’S] SENSE OF FAIRNESS;” PETITONER WAS REINSTATED IN GOOD STANDING (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF WAS UNABLE TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RAMP FROM WHICH HE FELL WAS NEGLIGENTLY DESIGNED OR MAINTAINED, NO APPLICABLE BUILDING OR SAFETY CODES (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT, A PODIATRIST, USING ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE (OZONE THERAPY), TREATED PLAINTIFF FOR LYME DISEASE; DEFENDANT DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF OF THE APPLICABLE STANDARD OF CARE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Contract with Construction Manager Did Not Give the Manager Sufficient Supervisory Control to Impose Liability Under Labor Law 200, 240 (1) or 246 (1)
THE GUARANTEES QUALIFED AS INSTRUMENTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY ONLY AND SUPPORTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT; ONLY PURELY LEGAL ARGUMENTS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL CAN BE CONSIDERED (FIRST DEPT).
Whether the “Assault and Battery” Exclusion from Coverage Pertained to an Arson Is a Question of Fact Which Depends Upon the Motives of the Arsonist
CHILD’S ATTORNEY HAD STANDING TO OBJECT TO THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S CHILD SUPPORT RULINGS, AN ADOPTIVE SUBSIDY IS A RESOURCE OF THE ADOPTED CHILD AND SHOULD BE PAID TO THE ADOPTIVE MOTHER ON THE CHILD’S BEHALF UNTIL THE CHILD TURNS 21, EVEN THOUGH MOTHER NO LONGER CARES FOR THE CHILD (FIRST 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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DISCONTINUANCE OF A PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION DE-ACCELERATED... DEFENDANT RAILROAD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FEDERAL EMPLOYERS’...