You are here: / / THE REACH OF LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) AND THE MEANING OF “OWNER”...

THE REACH OF LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) AND THE MEANING OF “OWNER” AS USED IN THAT STATUTE EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant 2 Big Meadows’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action should not have been granted. The court explained the reach of liability under Labor Law 241 (6) and the meaning of the term “owner” as used in the statute:

Liability under Labor Law § 241(6) extends to “[a]ll contractors and owners and their agents . . . when constructing or demolishing buildings or doing any excavating in connection therewith.” “[T]he burden placed upon a defendant seeking summary judgment on the ground that it is not an owner is a heavy one” … . * * *

… “[T]he term ‘owner’ is not limited to the titleholder of the property where the accident occurred and encompasses a person ‘who has an interest in the property and who fulfilled the role of owner by contracting to have work performed for his [or her] benefit'” … . “[T]he critical factor in determining whether a party is an ‘owner’ is whether it ‘possessed the right to insist that proper safety practices were followed; that is, the right to control the work'” … . The evidentiary submissions furnished by 2 Big Meadow in support of its motion for summary judgment did not eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether 2 Big Meadow, which clearly benefitted from the renovation of its property, was involved in contracting to have the construction project performed or had the authority to insist on proper safety practices. Cruz v 1142 Bedford Ave., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op 08220, Second Dept 3-17-21

 

You might also like
STRIKING THE COMPLAINT WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO DISCOVERY DEMANDS; $2500 PENALTY IMPOSED (SECOND DEPT).
Out-Of-Possession Landlord Not Liable for Missing Light in Stairwell
PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS STAIRCASE SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED THE CAUSES OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE STAIRCASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE PETITION SEEKING LEAVE TO COMMENCE AN ACTION AGAINST THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT INDEMNIFICATION CORPORATION (MVAIC) IN THIS PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT A HEARING, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE NOTICE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ACTION WERE MET (SECOND DEPT).
GOODYEAR DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT AFFILIATIONS WITH NEW YORK TO CONFER JURISDICTION IN THIS TIRE-MALFUNCTION OUT-OF-STATE ACCIDENT CASE (SECOND DEPT).
Allowing the Prosecutor to Tell the Jury in Summation that the Person Who Provided the Police with a Tip Must Have Identified the Defendant as the Perpetrator Was Reversible Error—The Prosecutor Effectively Told the Jury Another “Witness” Had Identified the Defendant, But that “Witness” Did Not Testify and Could Not, Therefore, Be Cross-Examined
THE ELECTRICAL STUB UP OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION WAS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION; THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRING PASSAGEWAYS TO BE KEPT CLEAR OF DEBRIS GENERALLY DO NOT APPLY TO AN OBSTRUCTION WHICH IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF CONSTRUCTION; HERE THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE SAFETY MARKERS CALLING ATTENTION TO THE STUB UPS APPARENTLY BROUGHT THE FACTS WITHIN THE REACH OF THOSE “KEEP PASSAGEWAYS FREE OF DEBRIS” CODE PROVISIONS (SECOND DEPT). ​
Supreme Court Erred In Refusing to Appoint a Guardian—However, Petitioner Was Not the Appropriate Choice for the Guardian

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 COUNTY POLICE OFFICER’S STATEMENT TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT TO... PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS AFTER...