Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Kurtis K. KVANDAL and Mary Margaret Kvandal, Respondents, v. WESTMINSTER PRESBYTERIAN SOCIETY OF BUFFALO, INC., Appellant.
WESTMINSTER PRESBYTERIAN SOCIETY OF BUFFALO, INC., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. LEHIGH CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.
Supreme Court erred in denying that part of defendant's motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action. Kurtis K. Kvandal (plaintiff), an employee of third-party defendant, was injured when he stepped off a ladder onto a nail while performing drywall work on premises owned by defendant. Although a representative of defendant visited the worksite daily to observe the progress of the project, the record contains no proof that defendant actually supervised or controlled work to sustain those causes of action (see, e.g., Riley v. Stickl Constr. Co., 242 A.D.2d 936, 662 N.Y.S.2d 660; Adamczyk v. Hillview Estates Dev. Corp., 226 A.D.2d 1049, 1050, 641 N.Y.S.2d 925).
The court properly denied, however, that part of defendant's motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action. Plaintiffs allege that defendant violated 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e) and 23-2.1(b) by permitting a nail to remain on the floor of the worksite. Those regulations set forth specific standards of conduct that are sufficient to support the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action (see generally, Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 N.Y.2d 494, 502-504, 601 N.Y.S.2d 49, 618 N.E.2d 82). Plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact whether those standards were violated.
Consequently, we modify the order by granting in part defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence causes of action.
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 02, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)