You are here: / / HERE THE OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT EXERCISE...
,

HERE THE OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR DEMONSTRATED THEY DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER THE WORK PLAINTIFF WAS DOING WHEN INJURED; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE COURT NOTED THAT THE RIGHT TO GENERALLY SUPERVISE THE WORK OR TO STOP THE WORK FOR SAFETY VIOLATIONS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE “SUPERVISION AND CONTROL” OF THE WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 200 OR COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, dismissing the Labor Law 200 and negligence causes of action against the owner and general contractor, noted that the right to generally supervise the work, to stop the work for a safety violation or to ensure compliance with safety regulations does not amount to the level of supervision and control of the work for liability under Labor Law 200. Plaintiff worked for a subcontractor and was injured while attempting to guide a heavy concrete object as it was lowered into a hole by a crane:

“The right to generally supervise the work, to stop the work if a safety violation is noted, or to ensure compliance with safety regulations does not amount to the supervision and control of the work necessary to impose liability on an owner or a general contractor pursuant to Labor Law § 200” … . Here, … defendants established … that the alleged incident arose from work performed over which they did not exercise supervision or control … . Kelly v RBSL Realty, LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 07291, Second Dept 12-24-25

Practice Point: In the context of the requirements for Labor Law 200 and common law negligence liability for construction accidents, the owner’s and/or general contractor’s right to generally supervise the work and/or to stop the work for safety violations does not amount to “supervision and control” of the work.​

 

You might also like
THE NEGOTIATED PLEA REQUIRED NO POST-PLEA ARRESTS; DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED AFTER THE PLEA BUT THE PROCEEDINGS WERE DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS AND THE RECORDS SEALED; THE POST-PLEA ARRESTS WERE THEREFORE A NULLITY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE SENTENCING JUDGE (SECOND DEPT). ​
COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE, MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 AND DID NOT SUBMIT ADMISSIBLE PROOF OF STANDING PURSUANT TO A MERGER, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
APPELLATE COUNSEL’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF LEAVE TO WITHDRAW WAS DEFICIENT, NEW APPELLATE COUNSEL ASSIGNED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S DOUBLE-PARKED TRUCK MERELY FURNISHED THE OCCASION FOR THE MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT OR WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT; PLAINTIFF FLIPPED OVER THE MOTORCYCLE BRAKING TO AVOID COLLIDING WITH THE TRUCK (SECOND DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST THE DIOCESE; PURSUANT TO THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED BY A PRIEST WHEN HE WAS 15 TO 16 (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE PERSONAL PROPERTY IN PLAINTIFF’S RENTED STORAGE FACILITY WAS SOLD AT AUCTION BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S PURPORTED FAILURE TO PAY RENT; WHEN THE DEFENDANT STORAGE FACILITY OWNER REALIZED THE RENT HAD BEEN PAID BY PLAINTIFF’S PARTNER, DEFENDANT RESCINDED THE SALE OF PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY, WAIVED LATE FEES, RETURNED THE MONEY TO THE BUYER AND ADVISED THE BUYER TO RETURN THE PROPERTY TO PLAINITFF; ALLEGING PROPERTY WAS MISSING, PLAINTIFF SUED UNDER LIEN LAW 182 FOR “WRONGFUL SALE” OF THE PROPERTY; AFTER AN EXTENSIVE STATUTORY ANALYSIS, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT DETERMINED LIEN LAW 182 DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION FOR “WRONGFUL SALE” (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NEGLIGENT AS A MATTER OF LAW BASED ON A VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW VIOLATION, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT WAS DRIVING HIS OWN VEHICLE TO WORK AND WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, EMPLOYER ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND 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

A CERTIFICATE OF INURANCE NAMING A PARTY AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED IS EVIDENCE... THE PEOPLE AGREED DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS IN THE OMNIBUS MOTION WARRANTED...