In the case of **Flores v. Crescent Beach Club, LLC**, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York reviewed an order from December 12, 2019, which denied a motion by the defendant Lad Creative, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it. The plaintiff, Robert Flores, sustained injuries while demolishing a wooden pergola at Crescent Beach Club, claiming that the defendant acted as either the general contractor or an agent of the property owner.
The court modified the original order by granting summary judgment to Lad Creative for the common-law negligence claims and violations of Labor Law sections 200 and 241(6), highlighting the nondelegable duties imposed on owners and contractors under Labor Law. Specifically, Labor Law § 240(1) mandates that general contractors provide necessary safety devices for workers at elevated sites, while Labor Law § 241(6) requires reasonable care for worker safety during construction, demolition, or excavation activities. The court noted that a contractor is liable under these laws if it coordinates and supervises a project, thereby having authority over safety standards. Furthermore, a party may be considered an agent of the owner or contractor if it can control the activities leading to the injury. Ultimately, the modified order was affirmed without costs or disbursements.
Lad failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that it was not acting as a general contractor or agent of the property owner at the time of the accident. Evidence indicated that Lad’s owner was involved in hiring the plaintiff's employer for the demolition, provided oversight, and was present during the incident. Consequently, the court denied Lad's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against it.
Regarding the Labor Law § 241(6) claim, the plaintiff needed to show that their injuries were proximately caused by a violation of an applicable Industrial Code provision. Lad argued that the relevant provision, 12 NYCRR 23-3.3(c), was inapplicable since the hazard stemmed from the plaintiff's actions during demolition rather than structural instability. The plaintiff did not present a triable issue of fact in response. Therefore, the court should have granted Lad's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) claim.
For Labor Law § 200, which reflects the common-law duty to maintain a safe workplace, liability requires the party to have control over the work causing the injury. While property owners and general contractors have general oversight authority, this does not suffice for liability under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence. Lad established, prima facie, that it lacked control over the methods of the plaintiff's work, and the plaintiff did not raise a triable issue of fact. Thus, the court should have granted Lad's motion for summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against it. The remaining arguments presented by the parties were deemed unnecessary to address.
