safety violation in New York

2025Corp. , 104 AD3d 672 , 676 [2d Dept 2013], quoting Ortega v Puccia, 57 AD3d 54, 62 [2d Dept 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 [2d Dept 2010] quoting Gasques v State of New York, 59 AD3d 666, 668 [2d Dept 2009]).

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.

2025Corp. , 104 AD3d 672 , 676 [2d Dept 2013], quoting Ortega v Puccia, 57 AD3d 54, 62 [2d Dept 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 [2d Dept 2010] quoting Gasques v State of New York, 59 AD3d 666, 668 [2d Dept 2009]).

2022"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 ; see Guallpa v Canarsie Plaza, LLC , 144 AD3d 1088, 1092 ). "[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" ( Banscher v Actus Lend Lease, LLC , 132 AD3d 70

2025Corp. , 104 AD3d 672 , 676 [2d Dept 2013], quoting Ortega v Puccia, 57 AD3d 54, 62 [2d Dept 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 [2d Dept 2010] quoting Gasques v State of New York, 59 AD3d 666, 668 [2d Dept 2009]).

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.

2024“The retention of the right to generally supervise the work, to stop the contractor's work if a safety violation is noted, or to ensure compliance with safety regulations, does not amount to the supervision and control of the work site necessary to impose liability on an owner or general contractor pursuant to Labor Law § 200” (Dennis v. City of New York, 304 AD2d 611, 612 [2d Dept 2003]).

2017Specifically, “[t]he retention of the right to generally supervise the work, to stop the contractor’s work if a safety violation is noted, or to ensure compliance with safety regulations, does not amount to the supervision and control of the work site necessary to impose liability on an owner or general contractor pursuant to Labor Law § 200” (Dennis v City of New York, 304 AD2d 611, 612 [2d Dept 2003]; Brown v New York City Economic Dev.

2015Auth., 57 AD3d 701, 702 [2008]).

2013Auth., 57 AD3d 701 [2008]).

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

2022"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 ; see Guallpa v Canarsie Plaza, LLC , 144 AD3d 1088, 1092 ). "[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" ( Banscher v Actus Lend Lease, LLC , 132 AD3d 70

2017Corp., 234 AD2d 33, 33 [1st Dept 1996] [Court held that oversight responsibility as opposed to specific work of any subcontractor was insufficient to impose liability for a Labor Law § 200 upon the owner]; Carty v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 32 AD3d 732, 732-733 [1st Dept 2006]).

2012Corp., 234 AD2d 33, 33 [1996] [oversight responsibility for work insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200]; Carty v Port Auth. of NY. & N.J., 32 AD3d 732, 733 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 814 [2007]).

2018The particular safety rule or regulation relied upon by a plaintiff must mandate compliance with particular specifications, and not simply set forth general safety standards ( see id. at 504-505 ).

2014Co., 81 NY2d at 504-505 ).

2017Corp., 234 AD2d 33, 33 [1st Dept 1996] [Court held that oversight responsibility as opposed to specific work of any subcontractor was insufficient to impose liability for a Labor Law § 200 upon the owner]; Carty v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 32 AD3d 732, 732-733 [1st Dept 2006]).

2012Corp., 234 AD2d 33, 33 [1996] [oversight responsibility for work insufficient to impose liability under Labor Law § 200]; Carty v Port Auth. of NY. & N.J., 32 AD3d 732, 733 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 814 [2007]).

2015Evidence of a violation of a safety standard is an insufficient ground for granting a motion for leave to amend a complaint to add a claim for punitive damages inasmuch as such a violation does not constitute “negligence per se,” but is “merely some evidence of negligence” (Bauer v Female Academy of Sacred Heart, 97 NY2d 445, 453 [2002]; see Cowsert v Macy’s E., Inc., 74 AD3d 1444, 1445 [2010]; Heller v Louis Provenzano, Inc., 303 AD2d 20, 25 [2003]; cf. Shaheen v Hueber-Breuer Constr.

2015Evidence of a violation of a safety standard is an insufficient ground for granting a motion for leave to amend a complaint to add a claim for punitive damages inasmuch as such a violation does not constitute “negligence per se,” but is “merely some evidence of negligence” (Bauer v Female Academy of Sacred Heart, 97 NY2d 445, 453 [2002]; see Cowsert v Macy’s E., Inc., 74 AD3d 1444, 1445 [2010]; Heller v Louis Provenzano, Inc., 303 AD2d 20, 25 [2003]; cf. Shaheen v Hueber-Breuer Constr.

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.

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’ ” (Banscher v Actus Lend Lease, LLC, 132 AD3d 707, 709 [2015], quoting Gasques v State of New York, 59 AD3d 666, 668 [2009], affd 15 NY3d 869 [2010]).

2026"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" (<i>Messina v City of New York</i>, 147 AD3d 748, 749 [2d Dept 2017]; <i>see Palumbo v Citigroup Tech., Inc.</i>, 240 AD3d 455 , 457 [1st Dept 2025]).

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"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 ; see Guallpa v Canarsie Plaza, LLC , 144 AD3d 1088, 1092 ). "[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" ( Banscher v Actus Lend Lease, LLC , 132 AD3d 70

2022"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 ; see Guallpa v Canarsie Plaza, LLC , 144 AD3d 1088, 1092 ). "[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" ( Banscher v Actus Lend Lease, LLC , 132 AD3d 70

2015Evidence of a violation of a safety standard is an insufficient ground for granting a motion for leave to amend a complaint to add a claim for punitive damages inasmuch as such a violation does not constitute “negligence per se,” but is “merely some evidence of negligence” (Bauer v Female Academy of Sacred Heart, 97 NY2d 445, 453 [2002]; see Cowsert v Macy’s E., Inc., 74 AD3d 1444, 1445 [2010]; Heller v Louis Provenzano, Inc., 303 AD2d 20, 25 [2003]; cf. Shaheen v Hueber-Breuer Constr.

2015Evidence of a violation of a safety standard is an insufficient ground for granting a motion for leave to amend a complaint to add a claim for punitive damages inasmuch as such a violation does not constitute “negligence per se,” but is “merely some evidence of negligence” (Bauer v Female Academy of Sacred Heart, 97 NY2d 445, 453 [2002]; see Cowsert v Macy’s E., Inc., 74 AD3d 1444, 1445 [2010]; Heller v Louis Provenzano, Inc., 303 AD2d 20, 25 [2003]; cf. Shaheen v Hueber-Breuer Constr.

2015We reject plaintiffs’ contention that the court erred in dismissing the products liability claims based on failure to warn. “ ‘There is no duty to warn of an open and obvious danger of which the product user is actually aware or should be aware as a result of ordinary observation or as a matter of common sense’ ” (Cwiklinski v Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 70 AD3d 1477, 1479 [2010]).

2015We reject plaintiffs’ contention that the court erred in dismissing the products liability claims based on failure to warn. “ ‘There is no duty to warn of an open and obvious danger of which the product user is actually aware or should be aware as a result of ordinary observation or as a matter of common sense’ ” (Cwiklinski v Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 70 AD3d 1477, 1479 [2010]).

2015Co., 4 AD3d 761, 762-763 [2004]).

2015Co., 4 AD3d 761, 762-763 [2004]).

2015In opposition to Cyber Sport Manufacturing’s motion, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue because their expert did not identify any violation of a safety standard or deviation from industry standards regarding the signal used by the employees to stop the cars (see Kiersznowski, 67 AD3d at 1367 ; McAllister v Raymond Corp., 36 AD3d 768, 768-769 [2007]).

2015In opposition to Cyber Sport Manufacturing’s motion, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue because their expert did not identify any violation of a safety standard or deviation from industry standards regarding the signal used by the employees to stop the cars (see Kiersznowski, 67 AD3d at 1367 ; McAllister v Raymond Corp., 36 AD3d 768, 768-769 [2007]).

2015Evidence of a violation of a safety standard is an insufficient ground for granting a motion for leave to amend a complaint to add a claim for punitive damages inasmuch as such a violation does not constitute “negligence per se,” but is “merely some evidence of negligence” (Bauer v Female Academy of Sacred Heart, 97 NY2d 445, 453 [2002]; see Cowsert v Macy’s E., Inc., 74 AD3d 1444, 1445 [2010]; Heller v Louis Provenzano, Inc., 303 AD2d 20, 25 [2003]; cf. Shaheen v Hueber-Breuer Constr.

2015Evidence of a violation of a safety standard is an insufficient ground for granting a motion for leave to amend a complaint to add a claim for punitive damages inasmuch as such a violation does not constitute “negligence per se,” but is “merely some evidence of negligence” (Bauer v Female Academy of Sacred Heart, 97 NY2d 445, 453 [2002]; see Cowsert v Macy’s E., Inc., 74 AD3d 1444, 1445 [2010]; Heller v Louis Provenzano, Inc., 303 AD2d 20, 25 [2003]; cf. Shaheen v Hueber-Breuer Constr.

2025Marino , 208 AD3d at 1021 [issue was whether there were any prior instances of the parking brake on a forklift malfunctioning]; Shaw , 187 AD3d at 1665 [issue was whether a "man lift" that plaintiff was unloading from a flatbed truck was defective and whether there was notice of that defect]; Salerno , 161 AD3d at 1523 [finding that there were "triable issues of fact whether plaintiff's employer had actual notice of a structural defect or unsafe condition regarding the safety bar" in a skid-loader]).

2025Marino , 208 AD3d at 1021 [issue was whether there were any prior instances of the parking brake on a forklift malfunctioning]; Shaw , 187 AD3d at 1665 [issue was whether a "man lift" that plaintiff was unloading from a flatbed truck was defective and whether there was notice of that defect]; Salerno , 161 AD3d at 1523 [finding that there were "triable issues of fact whether plaintiff's employer had actual notice of a structural defect or unsafe condition regarding the safety bar" in a skid-loader]).

2016Francis Hosp., 78 AD3d 1123, 1125 [2010]).

2011Francis Hosp., 78 AD3d at 1125).

2013Here, no rational jury could have found that Safety was responsible for providing the plaintiff with a safe place to work (see Frumusa v Weyer Constr., 245 AD2d 416, 417 [1997]) or had the authority to supervise or control the performance of the work that allegedly brought about Pope’s injury (see O’Sullivan v IDI Constr.

2013Here, no rational jury could have found that Safety was responsible for providing the plaintiff with a safe place to work (see Frumusa v Weyer Constr., 245 AD2d 416, 417 [1997]) or had the authority to supervise or control the performance of the work that allegedly brought about Pope’s injury (see O’Sullivan v IDI Constr.

2011Auth., 35 AD3d 566, 567 [2006]), the plaintiffs raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Granite had the authority directly to evaluate the condition and supervise the use of the equipment that gave rise to the plaintiffs injuries.

2009Auth., 35 AD3d 566, 567 [2006]; Warnitz v Liro Group, 254 AD2d 411 [1998]), the defendant, on the record before us, failed to make a prima facie showing that it did not have the authority to control the manner in which the claimant’s work was performed (see Hurtado v Interstate Materials Corp., 56 AD3d 722 [2008]). 12 NYCRR 23-1.5 (c) (1) is a general safety standard, which is an insufficient predicate for liability under Labor Law § 241 (6) (see Maday v Gábe’s Contr., LLC, 20 AD3d 513 [2005]; Sparkes v Berger, 11 AD3d 601 [2004]; Madir u 21-23 Maiden Lane Realty, LLC, 9 AD3d 450 [2004]).

2018N & P's right to generally supervise the work, stop the contractor's work if a safety violation was noted, and ensure compliance with safety regulations and contract specifications does not amount to supervision and control of the work site such that N & P would be liable for any negligence of the contractor who performs the day-to-day operations ( see Guallpa v Canarsie Plaza, LLC , 144 AD3d 1088, 1092 ; Cabrera v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y. , 33 AD3d 641 ; Warnitz v Liro Group , 254 AD2d 411 ).

2008In this regard “[t]he retention of the right to generally supervise the work, to stop the contractor’s work if a safety violation is noted, or to ensure compliance with safety regulations, does not amount to the [authority to] supervise and control . . . necessary to impose liability on an owner or general contractor pursuant to Labor Law § 200” (Dennis v City of New York, 304 AD2d 611, 612 [2003]; see Warnitz v Liro Group, 254 AD2d 411, 411-412 [1998]).

2011Although liability may not be imposed upon a general contractor under Labor Law § 200 or for common-law negligence merely by showing that it had the general authority to supervise all work at a construction or demolition site, stop a subcontractor’s work if a safety violation is noted, or ensure compliance with safety regulations and contract specifications (see McLeod v Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Sts., 41 AD3d 796, 798 [2007]; Peay v New York City School Constr.

2009While the 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 (see McLeod v Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Sts., 41 AD3d 796, 798 [2007]; Peay v New York City School Constr.

2025Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (e) (1) Plaintiff's Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action is predicated upon Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (e) (1), which governs tripping hazards in passageways. [FN3] Hewing closely to the language of section 23-1.7 (e) (1), New York courts have held that, as an essential condition to the applicability of such section, the occurrence must have arisen in a passageway ( see Gancarz v Brooklyn Pier 1 Residential Owner, L.P. , 190 AD3d 955 , 957 [2d Dept 2021]; Lech v Castle Vil.

2025Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (e) (1) Plaintiff's Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action is predicated upon Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (e) (1), which governs tripping hazards in passageways. [FN3] Hewing closely to the language of section 23-1.7 (e) (1), New York courts have held that, as an essential condition to the applicability of such section, the occurrence must have arisen in a passageway ( see Gancarz v Brooklyn Pier 1 Residential Owner, L.P. , 190 AD3d 955, 957 [2d Dept 2021]; Lech v Castle Vil.

2018We further conclude that, contrary to defendants' contention on their appeal, the court properly denied their motion with respect to the section 241 (6) claim insofar as it alleged a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-9.2 (a) because there are triable issues of fact whether plaintiff's employer had actual notice of a structural defect or unsafe condition regarding the safety bar (see Misicki v Caradonna, 12 NY3d 511, 520-521 [2009]; Shields v First Ave.

2014The particular safety rule or regulation relied *984 upon by a plaintiff must mandate compliance with concrete specifications, and not simply set forth general safety standards (see Misicki v Caradonna, 12 NY3d at 515 ; Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec.