You are here: / / DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER OF METAL ROOFING WAS A CONTRACTOR WITHIN THE MEANING...

DEFENDANT MANUFACTURER OF METAL ROOFING WAS A CONTRACTOR WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK, EVEN IF IT DID NOT DO SO; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A ROOF WHERE THE METAL ROOFING WAS BEING INSTALLED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant Union was a contractor within the meaning of Labor Law 240 (1) and plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment against Union on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action stemming from his fall from the roof of a residence where metal roofing manufactured by Union was being installed by plaintiff’s employer:

It is well settled that the Labor Law “holds . . . general contractors absolutely liable for any breach of the statute even if the job was performed by an independent contractor over which [they] exercised no supervision or control” … , inasmuch as “[t]heir status as contractors is dependent on their right to exercise control, not whether they in fact did so” … . In determining whether a defendant may be found liable pursuant to section 240 (1), it is well settled that, where, as here, a defendant “ha[s] the authority to choose the part[y] who did the work, and directly enter[s] into [a] contract[] with th[at party], it ha[s] the authority to exercise control over the work, even if it [does] not actually do so” … .

… [P]laintiff submitted evidence establishing that Union entered into a contract with plaintiff’s employer to install the roofing materials at issue and that the contract provided Union with the power to, inter alia, perform inspections, stop work, and remove plaintiff’s employer from the job. We therefore conclude that plaintiff demonstrated as a matter of law that Union is a “contractor” within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1) … . Barker v Union Corrugating Co., 2020 NY Slip Op 05349, Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

You might also like
SORA Finding Reduced Twenty Points—No Evidence or Findings Re: Targeting of Victim
PLAINTIFFS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE RENDERED THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIMELY; REFERENCE TO THE “ENFORCEMENT” OF THE LOAN DOCUMENTS INDICATED THE POSSIBILITY OF REPRESENTATION AFTER THE DATE OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
TOWN COURT PROPERLY ORDERED THE EUTHANASIA OF RESPONDENT’S DOG AFTER THE DOG ATTACKED AND REPEATEDLY BIT A THREE-YEAR-OLD CHILD; THE DISSENTER ARGUED PETITIONERS DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT THEIR CHILD SUFFERED SERIOUS INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS LAW (FOURTH DEPT).
THE RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY WHEN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED, THE OFFICER TOOK PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES AND THEREFORE HIS CONDUCT DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF RECKLESS DISREGARD OF THE SAFETY OF OTHERS (FOURTH DEPT).
LEGAL SENTENCE FOR A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER DRASTICALLY REDUCED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE PURSUANT TO A MOTION FOR A WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS BASED UPON APPELLATE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO CONTEND THE SENTENCING COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR UNCHARGED SHOOTING; DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT OPEN THE DOOR FOR THAT EVIDENCE; THE PROSECUTOR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TREAT THE PEOPLE’S WITNESSES AS HOSTILE WITNESSES; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF COLLIDED WITH DEFENDANTS’ BLACK ANGUS BULL IN THE ROADWAY ON A DARK RAINY NIGHT, EVEN ASSUMING DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENCE PURSUANT TO THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HER FREEDOM FROM COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE JURY’S FINDING THAT THE VICTIM SUFFERED “SERIOUS INJURY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ASSAULT SECOND STATUTE WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT, IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW, FAILED TO YIELD THE... INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A LOOSE PANEL ON...