You are here: / / THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE LABOR LAW 241(6)...

THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION DID NOT APPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S DEMOLITION-WORK-INJURY; THE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND WAS NOT, THEREFORE, LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the Industrial Code provision which was the basis of the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action did not apply to plaintiff’s demolition-work-injury and defendant general contractor (Lad) did not exercise supervisory control over defendant’s work and was not therefore liable under Labor Law 200:

… [T]he cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) is predicated on Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(c), which mandates continuing inspections during hand demolition operations to detect hazards “resulting from weakened or deteriorated floors or walls or from loosened material.” … [Defendant] established …the inapplicability of this provision by demonstrating that the hazard arose from the plaintiff’s actual performance of the demolition work itself, and not structural instability caused by the progress of the demolition … . …

“Although property owners [and general contractors] often have a general authority to oversee the progress of the work, mere general supervisory authority at a work site for the purpose of overseeing the progress of the work and inspecting the work product is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200” or for common-law negligence … . “A defendant has the authority to supervise or control the work for the purposes of Labor Law § 200 when that defendant bears the responsibility for the manner in which the work is performed” … .

Here, Lad established, prima facie, that it did not possess the authority to supervise or control the means and methods of the plaintiff’s work … . Flores v Crescent Beach Club, LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 04901, Second Dept 8-10-22

Practice Point: Here the cited Industrial Code provision did not apply to plaintiff’s Labor Law 241(6) demolition-work-injury cause of action and Labor Law 200 did not apply to defendant general contractor which did not exercise supervisory control over plaintiff’s work.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS DEEMED TO HAVE ASSUMED THE RISK OF PLAYING CRICKET ON A COURT WITH AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CRACK (SECOND DEPT).
20 POINTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ASSESSED UNDER RISK FACTOR 7 (RELATIONSHIP WITH THE VICTIM) BECAUSE THE VICTIM WAS NOT A STRANGER; ALTHOUGH SUBTRACTING 20 POINTS WOULD RESULT IN A LEVEL TWO SEX OFFENDER CLASSIFICATION, THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK BECAUSE THE PEOPLE INDICATED IF DEFENDANT WAS NOT DESIGNATED A LEVEL THREE OFFENDER THEY WOULD SEEK AN UPWARD DEPARTURE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN EASEMENT BY IMPLICATION FOR A DRIVEWAY LEADING TO PLAINTIFF’S GARAGE (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER WAS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVE THE SON ACTUALLY SEXUALLY ABUSED THE DAUGHTER TO MAKE A NEGLECT FINDING BASED UPON MOTHER’S LEAVING THE DAUGHTER UNDER THE SON’S SUPERVISION; THE DAUGHTER’S ALLEGATIONS SHE WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED WERE DEEMED SUFFICIENTLY CORROBORATED BY HER KNOWLEDGE ABOUT SEX AND PORNOGRAPHY; STRONG DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE CHILDREN’S HEARSAY EVIDENCE AND KNOWLEDGE FATHER LEGALLY POSSESSED A FIREARM DID NOT SUPPORT THE NEGLECT FINDING; THE EVIDENTIARY CRITERIA FOR NEGLECT ARE EXPLAINED IN DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).
NOT NECSSARY TO PROVE WHICH OF TWO CARETAKERS WITH ACCESS TO THE CHILD ACTUALLY INJURED THE CHILD.
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION PLAINTIFFS’ CAR STOPPED SUDDENLY DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT IDENTIFY THE RECORDS RELIED UPON FOR THE CALCULATIONS AND DID NOT ATTACH THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS; IN ADDITION THE HEARING ON NOTICE REQUIRED BY CPLR 4313 WAS NOT HELD (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

TO AVOID DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (C) THE PLAINTIFF NEED ONLY TAKE PROCEEDINGS... DEFENDANT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT A...