You are here: / / THE CONTRACTOR THAT HIRED THE SUBCONTRACTOR FOR WHICH THE INJURED PLAINTIFF...
,

THE CONTRACTOR THAT HIRED THE SUBCONTRACTOR FOR WHICH THE INJURED PLAINTIFF WORKED WAS THE CONDOMINIUM DEFENDANTS’ STATUTORY AGENT AND THEREFORE CAN BE HELD LIABLE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant Chelsea, the contractor that hired the subcontractor, Prince, for which the injured plaintiff worked, was the statutory agent of the condominium defendants in this Labor Law 240(1) case. Therefore the action against Chelsea should not have been dismissed:

Supreme Court improperly dismissed Chelsea from this action on the ground that it is not the condo defendants’ statutory agent for purposes of Labor Law § 240(1) liability. Chelsea was the only contractor that the condo defendants retained to perform their window-washing project, and Chelsea cannot escape liability under Labor Law § 240(1) because it delegated the work by subcontracting it to Prince, plaintiff’s employer … . Chelsea’s authority to supervise and control the work is also demonstrated by its subcontracting the work to Prince, and whether Chelsea actually supervised plaintiff’s work is irrelevant … . Barreto v Board of Mgrs. of 545 W. 110th St. Condominium, 2025 NY Slip Op 00185, First Dept 1-14-25

Practice Point: Liability under Labor Law 240(1) extends to the statutory agent of the property owner, here the contractor that hired the subcontractor for which the injured plaintiff worked.

 

You might also like
DEED PROVIDED AS SECURITY FOR A DEBT CONSTITUTES A MORTGAGE TRIGGERING THE NEED FOR FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS UPON DEFAULT.
THE PROOF WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT). ​
Ambiguous Termination Notice Will Not Trigger Four-Month Article 78 Statute of Limitations
PETITIONER NYC FIREFIGHTER WAS DENIED ACCIDENTAL DISABILITY RETIREMENT (ADR) BENEFITS WITHOUT ANY EXPLANATION IN THE MEDICAL BOARD’S FINDINGS; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR A NEW DETERMINATION BASED ON A RECORD ADEQUATE FOR REVIEW (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A GENERAL SURGEON, DID NOT ASSERT KNOWLEDGE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THE FACE OF DEFENDANTS’ GASTROENTEROLOGY EXPERTS.
No Sanction for Automatic Destruction of Video Recordings of Accident Scene after 21 Days—Counsels’ Original Request for Video Recording at the Time of the Accident Was Complied With—Counsel Subsequently Asked for Six Hours of Recording Prior to the Accident—By the Time of that Request the Videotape Had Been Automatically Destroyed
Defendant Was Not Plaintiff’s “Special Employer”
IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO RETURN THE CHILD TO MOTHER DURING THE PENDENCY OF NEGLECT PROCEEDINGS; MOTHER HAD INJURED THE CHILD AND THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THE IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS FOR THE CHILD’S RETURN WILL ENSURE THE CHILD’S SAFETY (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

THE TREE WELL IN THE SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL WAS THE RESPONSIBILTY... COUNSELING OR TREATMENT SHOULD NOT BE MADE A CONDITION FOR ANY FUTURE MODIFICATION...