section 200 held liable in New York

2025Co. , 81 NY2d 494, 505 ). "'[M]ere 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'" ( id. at 1383, quoting Ortega v Puccia , 57 AD3d 54, 62 ). "'Where a premises condition is at issue, a property owner is liable under Labor Law § 200 when the owner created the dangerous condition causing an injury or when the owner failed to remedy a dangerous or defective condition of which he or she had actual or constructive notice'" ( Khan v Khan , 197 AD3d 1165 , 1

2023When a claim arises out of alleged defects or dangers involving the manner in which the work was performed, a general contractor will be held liable under Labor Law § 200 only if it possessed the authority to supervise or control the means and methods of the work ( see Cantalupo v Arco Plumbing & Heating, Inc. , 194 AD3d 686, 689 ; Moscati v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. , 168 AD3d 717 , 720; Ortega v Puccia , 57 AD3d 54, 61 ). "[M]ere 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 i

2022Where a plaintiff's injuries arise not from the manner in which the work was performed, but from a dangerous condition on the premises, a defendant may be liable under Labor Law § 200 if it "'either created the dangerous condition that caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition'" ( Rojas v Schwartz , 74 AD3d at 1047 , quoting Ortega v Puccia , 57 AD3d 54, 61 ; see Zukowski v Powell Cove Estates Home Owners Assn., Inc. , 187 AD3d 1099 ).

2022"To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 for injuries arising from the manner in which work is performed, a defendant must have 'authority to exercise supervision and control over the work'" ( Rojas v Schwartz , 74 AD3d 1046, 1046 , quoting Gallello v MARJ Distribs., Inc. , 50 AD3d 734, 735 ; see DiMaggio v Cataletto , 117 AD3d 984, 986 ).

2021"To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 for injuries arising from the manner in which work is performed, a defendant must have 'authority to exercise supervision and control over the work'" ( Rojas v Schwartz , 74 AD3d 1046, 1046 , quoting Gallello v MARJ Distribs., Inc. , 50 AD3d 734, 735 ; see Chowdhury v [*2]Rodriguez , 57 AD3d 121, 127-128 ).

2021To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 for injuries arising from the manner in which work is performed, a defendant must have authority to exercise supervision and control over the work ( see Dasilva v Nussdorf , 146 AD3d 859, 860 ; Chowdhury v Rodriguez , 57 AD3d 121, 127-128 ).

2022"To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 for injuries arising from the manner in which work is performed, a defendant must have 'authority to exercise supervision and control over the work'" ( Rojas v Schwartz , 74 AD3d 1046, 1046 , quoting Gallello v MARJ Distribs., Inc. , 50 AD3d 734, 735 ; see DiMaggio v Cataletto , 117 AD3d 984, 986 ).

2021"To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 for injuries arising from the manner in which work is performed, a defendant must have 'authority to exercise supervision and control over the work'" ( Rojas v Schwartz , 74 AD3d 1046, 1046 , quoting Gallello v MARJ Distribs., Inc. , 50 AD3d 734, 735 ).

2016To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 for injuries arising from the manner in which work is performed, a defendant must have the authority to exercise supervision and control over the work (see Lombardi v Stout, 80 NY2d 290, 295 [1992]; Hernandez v Pappco Holding Co., Ltd., 136 AD3d 981, 982 [2016]; Torres v City of New York, 127 AD3d at 1165 ; Gallello v MARJ Distribs., Inc., 50 AD3d 734, 735 [2008]). “ A defendant has the authority to supervise or control the work for purposes of Labor Law § 200 when that defendant bears the responsibility for the manner in which the work is performed’ ” (

2010Where, as here, the injuries were caused by a contractor’s methods of performing a particular construction activity, the owner cannot be held liable under section 200 or the common law unless it exercised supervisory control over the activity (see Lombardi v Stout, 80 NY2d 290, 295 [1992]).

2024A subcontractor "without control of plaintiff's work or ongoing control of the area in which he was injured . . . cannot be held liable under Labor Law § 200" ( Burns , 130 AD3d at 1433 ; see Eberhardt v G & J Contr., Inc. , 188 AD3d 1654 , 1654 [4th Dept 2020]; see also Russin , 54 NY2d at 316-317 ).

2021The defendants appeal. "'Section 200 of the Labor Law merely codified the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or general contractor to provide construction site work[ers] with a safe place to work'" ( Salgado v Rubin , 183 AD3d 617, 618 , quoting Russin v Louis N. Picciano & Son , 54 NY2d 311, 316-317 ). "'To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 for injuries arising from the manner in which [*2]work is performed, a defendant must have authority to exercise supervision and control over the work'" ( Salgado v Rubin , 183 AD3d at 618-619 , quoting Rojas v Schwartz , 74 AD3d 1046, 1046 ).

2024NO. 107 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/20/2024 To find an owner or general contractor liable under Labor Law § 200 for dangers arising from the means, methods, or materials of the work, it must be shown that the owner or general contractor had authority to supervise or control the injury-producing work (see Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d at 877 ).

2017To be held liable pursuant to Labor Law § 200 or for common-law negligence where, as here, the plaintiff’s claim arises out of the methods or means of the work, “recovery against the owner or general contractor cannot be had . . . unless it is shown that the party to be charged had the authority to supervise or control the performance of the work” (Ortega v Puccia, 57 AD3d at 61; see Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876, 877 [1993]; Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec.

2025"To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 for injuries arising from the manner in which work is performed, a defendant must have the authority to exercise supervision and control over the work" ( Torres v City of New York , 127 AD3d 1163, 1165 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Kosinski v Brendan Moran Custom Carpentry, Inc. , 138 AD3d 935, 937 ). "'Labor Law § 240(1) imposes upon owners . . . a nondelegable duty to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites'" ( Mitchell v 148th St.

2022"Where, as here, the plaintiff's injuries arise from the manner in which the work is performed, to be held liable under Labor Law § 200, 'a defendant must have the authority to exercise supervision and control over the work'" ( Navarra v Hannon , 197 AD3d at 476 , quoting Torres v City of New York , 127 AD3d at 1165 ).

2019For an owner to be held liable pursuant to Labor Law § 200 or the common law, where as here, "the claim arises out of the methods or means of the work, [an owner] must have authority to supervise or control the work" ( Abdou v Rampaul , 147 AD3d at 887 ; see Rodriguez v Gany , 82 AD3d 863, 865 ).

2017To be held liable pursuant to Labor Law § 200 or the common law in a case such as this, where the claim arises out of the methods or means of the work, a defendant must have authority to supervise or control the work (see Rodriguez v Gany, 82 AD3d at 865 ; Rojas v Schwartz, 74 AD3d 1046 [2010]; Ortega v Puccia, 57 AD3d at 61-63).

2026Corp., 83 AD3d 905, 909 [2d Dept 2011]; DaSilva v Toll First Ave., LLC, 199 AD3d 511 , 513 [1st Dept 2021]; Andino v Wizards Studios N. Inc., 223 AD3d 508 , 509 [1st Dept 2024]).

2025Corp., 83 AD3d 905, 909 [2d Dept 2011]; DaSilva v Toll First Ave., LLC, 199 AD3d 511 , 513 [1st Dept 2021]; Andino v Wizards Studios N. Inc., 223 AD3d 508 , 509 [1st Dept 2024]).

2024Corp. , 90 AD3d 642, 644 [2011]; Rodriguez v Gany , 82 AD3d 863, 865 [2011]; Rojas v Schwartz , 74 AD3d 1046 [2010]; Ortega v Puccia , 57 AD3d 54 [2008]). ( Gallagher v Resnick, 107 AD3d 942 , 945 [2d Dept 2013].).

2024Corp. , 90 AD3d 642, 644 [2011]; Rodriguez v Gany , 82 AD3d 863, 865 [2011]; Rojas v Schwartz , 74 AD3d 1046 [2010]; Ortega v Puccia , 57 AD3d 54 [2008]). ( Gallagher v Resnick, 107 AD3d 942 , 945 [2d Dept 2013].).

2022"To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 for injuries arising from the manner in which work is performed, a defendant must have 'authority to exercise supervision and control over the work'" ( Rojas v Schwartz , 74 AD3d 1046, 1046 , quoting Gallello v MARJ Distribs., Inc. , 50 AD3d 734, 735 ; see DiMaggio v Cataletto , 117 AD3d 984, 986 ).

2014“To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 for injuries arising from the manner in which work is performed, a defendant must have authority to exercise supervision and control over the work” (Rojas v Schwartz, 74 AD3d 1046, 1046 [2010] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see DiMaggio v Cataletto, 117 AD3d 984, 986 [2014]).

2025Co. , 81 NY2d 494, 505 ). "'Where a premises condition is at issue, a property owner is liable under Labor Law § 200 when the owner created the dangerous condition causing an injury or when the owner failed to remedy a dangerous or defective condition of which he or she had actual or constructive notice'" ( Khan v Khan , 197 AD3d 1165 , 1167, quoting Villada v 452 Fifth Owners, LLC , 188 AD3d 1292, 1294 ).

2025Co. , 81 NY2d 494, 505 ). "'[M]ere 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'" ( id. at 1383, quoting Ortega v Puccia , 57 AD3d 54, 62 ). "'Where a premises condition is at issue, a property owner is liable under Labor Law § 200 when the owner created the dangerous condition causing an injury or when the owner failed to remedy a dangerous or defective condition of which he or she had actual or constructive notice'" ( Khan v Khan , 197 AD3d 1165 , 1

2024NO. 144 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2024 worksite was insufficient to trigger liability"]; 0 'Sullivan, 28 AD3d at 226 ["Absent any evidence that [the general contractor] gave anything more than general instructions as to what needed to be done, as opposed to how to do it, [it] cannot be held liable under Labor Law § 200"]).

2024NO. 144 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/02/2024 worksite was insufficient to trigger liability"]; 0 'Sullivan, 28 AD3d at 226 ["Absent any evidence that [the general contractor] gave anything more than general instructions as to what needed to be done, as opposed to how to do it, [it] cannot be held liable under Labor Law § 200"]).

2018B & H, "as [a] subcontractor[] without control of plaintiff's work or ongoing control of the area in which he was injured, cannot be held liable under Labor Law § 200" ( Burns , 130 AD3d at 1433 ; see Tomyuk v Junefield Assoc ., 57 AD3d 518, 521 [2d Dept 2008]).

2014Consolidated established its entitlement to summary judgment on those claims by submitting evidence that it had completed its work and was not at the work site at the time of plaintiff’s injury; and, that as a subcontractor, it did not have the “authority to supervise or control the work that caused the plaintiffs injury” and thus cannot be held liable under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1) or 241 (6) (Tomyuk v Junefield Assoc., 57 AD3d 518, 521 [2008]; see Urban v No. 5 Times Sq.

2025Indeed, when a plaintiff's injuries stem from a dangerous or defective condition on the worksite, the owner may be liable under Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence if it had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition, irrespective of whether it supervised plaintiff's work ( see Wynne v State of New York , 53 AD3d 656, 657 [2d Dept 2008]; Kerins v Vassar Coll. , 15 AD3d 623, 626 [2d Dept 2005]; Blanco v Oliveri , 304 AD2d 599 [2d Dept 2003]).

2025Indeed, when a plaintiff's injuries stem from a dangerous or defective condition on the worksite, the owner may be liable under Labor Law § 200 and common law negligence if it had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition, irrespective of whether it supervised plaintiff's work ( see Wynne v State of New York , 53 AD3d 656, 657 [2d Dept 2008]; Kerins v Vassar Coll. , 15 AD3d 623, 626 [2d Dept 2005]; Blanco v Oliveri , 304 AD2d 599 [2d Dept 2003]).

2010To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 for injuries arising from the manner in which work is performed, a defendant must have “authority to exercise supervision and control over the work” (Gallello v MARJ Distribs., Inc., 50 AD3d 734, 735 [2008]; see Chowdhury v Rodriguez, 57 AD3d 121, 127-128 [2008]; Guerra v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 35 AD3d 810, 811 [2006]; Parisi v Loewen Dev. of Wappinger Falls, 5 AD3d 648 [2004]).

2008To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 for injuries arising from the manner in which work is performed at a work site, an owner or manager of real property must have authority to exercise supervision and control over the work at the site (see Lombardi v Stout, 80 NY2d 290, 295 [1992]; Guerra v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N. J., 35 AD3d 810, 811 [2006]; Parisi v Loewen Dev. of Wappinger Falls, 5 AD3d 648 [2004]). “[W]here ... a plaintiffs injuries stem not from the manner in which the work was being performed, but, rather, from a dangerous condition on the premises, [an owner or manager of real prope

2025In contrast, where the defect arises from a dangerous condition on the work site, instead of the methods or materials used by plaintiff and his employer, an owner or contractor “is liable under Labor Law § 200 when [it] created the dangerous condition causing an injury or when [it] failed to remedy a dangerous or defective condition of which [it] had actual or constructive notice” (Mendoza v Highpoint Assoc., IX, LLC, 83 AD3d 1, 9 [1st Dept 2011] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see also Minorczyk v Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y., 74 AD3d 675, 675 [1st Dept 2010]).

2021Where, as here, the accident occurred as a result of an alleged dangerous condition on the premises, [FN2] an owner who retains control of the premises may be liable under Labor Law § 200 if the owner " 'created the condition or had actual or constructive notice of it, and failed to remedy the condition within a reasonable amount of time'" ( Edwards v State University Construction Fund , 196 AD3d 778, 780 [2021], quoting Harrington v Fernet , 92 AD3d [*4]1070, 1071 [2012]; see Mendoza v Highpoint Assoc., IX, LLC , 83 AD3d 1, 9 [2011]).

2025"To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 for injuries arising from the manner in which work is performed, a defendant must have authority to exercise supervision and control over the work" ( Hamm v Review Assoc., LLC , 202 AD3d 934, 938 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2025As relevant here, "[w]here a plaintiff's injuries arise not from the manner in which the work was performed, but from a dangerous condition on the premises, a defendant may be liable under Labor Law § 200 if it either created the dangerous condition that caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition" ( Ramos v Kent & Wythe Owners, LLC , 236 AD3d 693, 697 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Hamm v Review Assoc., LLC , 202 AD3d 934, 938).

2021The defendants appeal. "'Section 200 of the Labor Law merely codified the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or general contractor to provide construction site work[ers] with a safe place to work'" ( Salgado v Rubin , 183 AD3d 617, 618 , quoting Russin v Louis N. Picciano & Son , 54 NY2d 311, 316-317 ). "'To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 for injuries arising from the manner in which [*2]work is performed, a defendant must have authority to exercise supervision and control over the work'" ( Salgado v Rubin , 183 AD3d at 618-619 , quoting Rojas v Schwartz , 74 AD3d 1046, 1046 ).

2021The defendants appeal. "'Section 200 of the Labor Law merely codified the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or general contractor to provide construction site work[ers] with a safe place to work'" ( Salgado v Rubin , 183 AD3d 617, 618 , quoting Russin v Louis N. Picciano & Son , 54 NY2d 311, 316-317 ). "'To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 for injuries arising from the manner in which [*2]work is performed, a defendant must have authority to exercise supervision and control over the work'" ( Salgado v Rubin , 183 AD3d at 618-619 , quoting Rojas v Schwartz , 74 AD3d 1046, 1046 ).

2003Co., 91 NY2d 343, 352-353 [1998]), we are ultimately persuaded by the undisputed fact that the methods of Reilly’s work were determined exclusively by a Centrifugal employee, as was the decision to continue the work after the hoist became inoperable (see Kocurek v Home Depot, U.S.A.P., 286 AD2d 577, 580 [2001] [contractor and subcontractor not liable where plaintiff’s employer, another subcontractor, had sole authority to control and supervise plaintiff’s work]; Loiacono v Lehrer McGovern Bovis, 270 AD2d 464, 465 [2000] [construction manager not liable under Labor Law § 200 where plaintiff tes

2002Co., 91 NY2d 343 ; Lombardi v Stout, 80 NY2d 290, 294 ; Giambalvo v Chemical Bank, 260 AD2d 432 ).