section 200 liability 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

2025In any event, "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" ( Ortega v Puccia , 57 AD3d 54, 62 ; see Wilson v Bergon Constr.

2023The Labor Law § 200 claim arises from the method of work, involving an inadequate ladder, but defendants exercised no supervisory control over the work, and therefore no liability attaches under Labor Law § 200 ( Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. , 82 NY2d 876, 877 [1993]).

2022"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 ( Ortega v Puccia , 57 AD3d 54, 62 ; see Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. , 82 NY2d at 877 ; Klimowicz v Powell Cove Assoc., LLC , 111 AD3d 605 , 608; Austin v Consolidated Edison, Inc. , 79 AD3d 682, 684 ).

2024NO. 115 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024 specifications is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200 or for common-law negligence'" (Marquez, 141 AD3d at 698 , quoting Austin v Consolidated Edison, Inc., 79 AD3d 682, 684 [2d Dept I . 201 0]; see Gasques v State ofNew York, 59 AD3d 666, 668 [2d _Dept 2009], affd on other grounds 15 NY3d 869 [2010]; Torre v Perry St.

2022"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 ( Ortega v Puccia , 57 AD3d 54, 62 ; see Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. , 82 NY2d at 877 ; Klimowicz v Powell Cove Assoc., LLC , 111 AD3d 605 , 608; Austin v Consolidated Edison, Inc. , 79 AD3d 682, 684 ).

2024Auth. , 57 AD3d 701, 702 [2008]; Ortega v Puccia , 57 AD3d 54, 60-63 [2008]).

2024Auth. , 57 AD3d 701, 702 [2008]; Ortega v Puccia , 57 AD3d 54, 60-63 [2008]).

2020"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" ( Ortega v Puccia , 57 AD3d at 62 ). "[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" ( Ortega v Puccia , 57 AD3d at 62 ; see Suconota v Knickerbocker Props., LLC , 116 AD3d 508 , 508).

2020"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" ( Ortega v Puccia , 57 AD3d at 62 ). "[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. ; see Suconota v Knickerbocker Props., LLC , 116 AD3d 508 , 508).

2021"Where, as here, the plaintiff contends that his or her injuries arose not from the manner in which the work was performed, but rather from an allegedly dangerous condition at the work site, liability under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence may be imposed upon a subcontractor where it had control over the work site and either created the allegedly dangerous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it" ( Vita v New York Law Sch. , 163 AD3d 605 , 607; see Russin v Louis N. Picciano & Son , 54 NY2d 311, 317 ).

2015Similarly, liability pursuant to Labor Law § 200 does not attach to a defendant who lacked the authority to control the activity that led to the injury (see Russin v Louis N. Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d at 317 ; Morris v C & F Bldrs., Inc., 87 AD3d at 793 ).

2026Nor did Lenox Hill supervise or control the means and methods of plaintiff's work so as to impose Labor Law § 200 liability on it, as the loading dock supervisor's actions did not constitute supervision for the purposes of Labor Law liability ( see Dalanna v City of New York, 308 AD2d 400, 400 [1st Dept 2003]).

2026Nor did Lenox Hill supervise or control the means and methods of plaintiff's work so as to impose Labor Law § 200 liability on it, as the loading dock supervisor's actions did not constitute supervision for the purposes of Labor Law liability ( see Dalanna v City of New York, 308 AD2d 400, 400 [1st Dept 2003]).

2024NO. 115 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024 specifications is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200 or for common-law negligence'" (Marquez, 141 AD3d at 698 , quoting Austin v Consolidated Edison, Inc., 79 AD3d 682, 684 [2d Dept I . 201 0]; see Gasques v State ofNew York, 59 AD3d 666, 668 [2d _Dept 2009], affd on other grounds 15 NY3d 869 [2010]; Torre v Perry St.

2016Corp., 104 AD3d 672 , 676 [2013], quoting Ortega v Puccia, 57 AD3d 54, 62 [2008]). “ ‘[T]he right to generally supervise the work, stop the contractor’s work if a safety violation is noted, or to ensure compliance with safety regulations and contract specifications is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200 or for common-law negligence’ ” (Austin v Consolidated Edison, Inc., 79 AD3d 682, 684 [2010], quoting Gasques v State of New York, 59 AD3d 666, 668 [2009], affd on other grounds 15 NY3d 869 [2010]; see Torres v Perry St.

2025As to SiteS and Essex, the ability to control the means and methods of plaintiff's work is not the only basis for imposing liability under Labor Law §200 upon an owner and general contractor. ''Where 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 and/or general contractor] may be. liable under Labot Law § 200 if it either Created the dangerous condition that caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition" (Banschet v Actus Lend Lease, LLC, 132 AD3d 707

2024"Where, as here, the plaintiff's injuries arise from the manner in which the work is preformed, 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 474, 476 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Southerton v City of New York , 203 AD3d at 980). "'[T]he right to generally supervise the work, stop the contractor's work if a safety violation is noted, or . . . ensure compliance with safety regulations and contract specifications is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200 or f

2016With respect to the latter cause of action, we note that “the violation of a specific provision of the Industrial Code, even if admitted by defendant, ‘does not establish negligence as a matter of law’ ” (Fisher v Brown Group, 256 AD2d 1069, 1069 [1998]), but is “merely some evidence to be considered on the question of a defendant’s negligence” (Zimmer v Chemung County Performing Arts, 65 NY2d 513, 522 [1985], rearg denied 65 NY2d 1054 [1985]; see Rizzuto, 91 NY2d at 349 ).

2008Co., 91 NY2d 343, 352 [1998]; Russin v Louis N. Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311, 317 [1981]; Gallello v MARJ Distribs., Inc., 50 AD3d 734, 735 [2008]; Dooley v Peerless Importers, Inc., 42 AD3d 199, 204-205 [2007]; Guerra v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N. J., 35 AD3d 810, 811 [2006]; Perri v Gilbert Johnson Enters., Ltd., 14 AD3d 681, 683 [2005]; Everitt v Nozkowski, 285 AD2d at 443 ; Reynolds v Brady & Co., 38 AD2d 746, 746-747 [1972]). 2 Although property owners often have a general authority to oversee the progress of the work, mere general supervisory authority at a work site for the purpose of overse

2024Corp. , 83 AD3d 905, 909 [2d Dept 2011]).

2024Corp ., 83 AD3d 905, 909 [2d Dept 2011]).

2026In Ross , we explained that allowing a plaintiff to use a "broad, nonspecific regulatory standard as predicate for an action against a nonsupervising owner or general contractor under Labor Law § 241 (6) would seriously distort the scheme of liability for unsafe working conditions"; would render "all but superfluous" Labor Law § 200 (1)'s confinement of liability to defendants having "a direct hand, through either control or supervision, in the injury-producing work"; and would run contrary to legislative intent ( 81 NY2d at 504-505 ).

2026In Ross , we explained that allowing a plaintiff to use a "broad, nonspecific regulatory standard as predicate for an action against a nonsupervising owner or general contractor under Labor Law § 241 (6) would seriously distort the scheme of liability for unsafe working conditions"; would render "all but superfluous" Labor Law § 200 (1)'s confinement of liability to defendants having "a direct hand, through either control or supervision, in the injury-producing work"; and would run contrary to legislative intent (81 NY2d at 504-505).

2024Inc., 99 AD3d 139 [1st Dept 2012] [finding that a protruding bolt which was not removed after a temporary installation was removed was not a “defect inherent in the policy” and a means and method analysis was used]). “[M]ere general supervisory authority at a worksite for the purpose of overseeing the progress of the work and inspecting the work product is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200” (Ortega, 57 AD3d at 62 ).

2023Further, as Safeway is neither an owner nor general contractor, there can be no liability under Labor Law § 200 ( see Cappabianca , 99 AD3d at 143 ; Urban v No. 5 Times Sq.

2024As for the Labor Law § 200 claim, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether Ryder had supervisory control over V&P and Bunlin's work that may have generated the debris that struck plaintiff, and Ryder's status as general contractor on the project was insufficient to establish § 200 liability ( see Reilly v Newireen Assoc ., 303 AD2d 214, 220 [1st Dept 2003]). 1711 and Ryder also demonstrated entitlement to conditional summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against PIMC.

2024As for the Labor Law § 200 claim, plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether Ryder had supervisory control over V&P and Bunlin's work that may have generated the debris that struck plaintiff, and Ryder's status as general contractor on the project was insufficient to establish § 200 liability ( see Reilly v Newireen Assoc ., 303 AD2d 214, 220 [1st Dept 2003]). 1711 and Ryder also demonstrated entitlement to conditional summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against PIMC.

2014Although property owners 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 common-law negligence (see Ortega v Puccia, 57 AD3d at 62; Natale v City of New York, 33 AD3d 772, 773 [2006]).

2010Moreover, “[although property owners 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” (Ortega v Puccia, 57 AD3d at 62; see Natale v City of New York, 33 AD3d 772, 773 [2006]).

2013Where, as here, a construction accident arises out of the means and methods of the work, as opposed to a dangerous condition on the site, liability under Labor Law § 200 or for common-law negligence may be imposed where the defendant “exercised control or supervision over the work and had actual or constructive notice of the purportedly unsafe condition” (Singh v Black Diamonds LLC, 24 AD3d 138, 140 [1st Dept 2005]).

2013Where, as here, a construction accident arises out of the means and methods of the work, as opposed to a dangerous condition on the site, liability under Labor Law § 200 or for common-law negligence may be imposed where the defendant “exercised control or supervision over the work and had actual or constructive notice of the purportedly unsafe condition” (Singh v Black Diamonds LLC, 24 AD3d 138, 140 [1st Dept 2005]).

2019Where, as here, a plaintiff alleges that he or she was injured at a work site as a result of a dangerous premises condition, a property owner's liability under Labor Law § 200 and for common-law negligence rests upon whether the property owner created the condition, or had actual or constructive notice of it and a reasonable amount of time within which to correct the condition ( see Wadlowski v Cohen , 150 AD3d 930, 931 ; Chowdhury v Rodriguez , 57 AD3d at 130 ).

2018Corp ., 83 AD3d 47, 49 ; see Chowdhury v Rodriguez , 57 AD3d 121, 130 ). "[W]hen a worker at a job site is injured as a result of dangerous or defective equipment used in the performance of work duties, the property owner's liability under Labor Law § 200 and for common-law negligence rests upon whether the property owner had the authority to supervise or control the means and methods of the work" ( Reyes v Arco Wentworth Mgt.

2024NO. 115 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/01/2024 specifications is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200 or for common-law negligence'" (Marquez, 141 AD3d at 698 , quoting Austin v Consolidated Edison, Inc., 79 AD3d 682, 684 [2d Dept I . 201 0]; see Gasques v State ofNew York, 59 AD3d 666, 668 [2d _Dept 2009], affd on other grounds 15 NY3d 869 [2010]; Torre v Perry St.

2016Corp., 104 AD3d 672 , 676 [2013], quoting Ortega v Puccia, 57 AD3d 54, 62 [2008]). “ ‘[T]he right to generally supervise the work, stop the contractor’s work if a safety violation is noted, or to ensure compliance with safety regulations and contract specifications is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200 or for common-law negligence’ ” (Austin v Consolidated Edison, Inc., 79 AD3d 682, 684 [2010], quoting Gasques v State of New York, 59 AD3d 666, 668 [2009], affd on other grounds 15 NY3d 869 [2010]; see Torres v Perry St.

2007Anns’s liability under the Labor Law § 200 or the common-law negligence, causes of action (see Linkowski v City of New York, supra; Singh v Black Diamonds LLC, supra; Loiacono v Lehrer McGovern Bovis, supra).

2006Similarly, since no evidence was submitted to demonstrate that Bovis had any control or supervisory role over the work of the plaintiff, so as to enable it to prevent or correct any unsafe conditions, there is no triable issue of fact as to Bovis’ liability under the Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence causes of action (see Singh v Black Diamonds LLC, 24 AD3d 138, 139-140 [2005]; Vasiliades v Lehrer McGovern & Bovis, 3 AD3d 400, 401-402 [2004]; Loiacono v Lehrer McGovern Bovis, 270 AD2d 464, 465 [2000]).

2025"General supervisory authority at a work site, the right to stop a contractor's work if a safety violation is observed, or the authority to ensure compliance with safety regulations or the terms of a contract is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200" ( Messina v City of New York , 147 AD3d at 749 ).

2022"General supervisory authority at a work site, the right to stop a contractor's work if a safety violation is observed, or the authority to ensure compliance with safety regulations or the terms of a contract is insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200" ( Messina v City of New York , 147 AD3d at 749 ; see Kauffman v Turner Constr.

2024Corp., 40 AD3d 305, 311 [1st Dept 2007]; see Bednarczyk v Vornado Realty Trust, 63 AD3d 427 [1st Dept 2009]; Burkoski v Structure Tone, Inc., 40 AD3d 378 [1st Dept 2007]; Smith v 499 Fashion Tower, LLC, 38 AD3d 523 [2d Dept 2007]).

2024Jewish Hosp., 116 AD3d 475 ,476 [1st Dept 2014]; Hughes, 40 AD3d at 306 ).