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.
Thomas C. WALP and Gretchen Walp, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. ACTS TESTING LABS, INC./DIVISION OF BUREAU VERITAS, Consumer Products Service Division of Bureau Veritas (Brand Name LTL-ACTS) and Bureau Veritas, Defendants-Appellants.
ACTS Testing Labs, Inc./Division of Bureau Veritas, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Northpointe Associates Building # 2, LLC, c/o Zaepfel Development Company, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover damages for injuries sustained by Thomas C. Walp (plaintiff) when he fell from a ladder while repairing an exhaust fan in a newly constructed building leased by defendant-third-party plaintiff, ACTS Testing Labs, Inc./Division of Bureau Veritas (ACTS), from third-party defendant, Northpointe Associates Building # 2, LLC (Northpointe). Supreme Court properly denied the cross motion of defendants seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the motion of Northpointe seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint and third-party complaint. The court also properly granted plaintiffs' cross motion seeking a determination that ACTS is an owner for purposes of liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6). “The term ‘owner’ as used in those sections is not limited to titleholders, but also encompasses one who ‘has an interest in the property,’ such as a lessee ․, who contracted for or otherwise has the right to control the work” (Fisher v. Coghlan, 8 A.D.3d 974, 975-976, 778 N.Y.S.2d 812, lv. dismissed 3 N.Y.3d 702, 785 N.Y.S.2d 28, 818 N.E.2d 670, quoting Copertino v. Ward, 100 A.D.2d 565, 566, 473 N.Y.S.2d 494; see Kane v. Coundorous, 293 A.D.2d 309, 311, 739 N.Y.S.2d 711). The record establishes that ACTS is an owner within the meaning of those Labor Law sections by virtue of the fact that it contracted with Northpointe for the construction of the building for the exclusive use and benefit of ACTS (see Kane, 293 A.D.2d at 311, 739 N.Y.S.2d 711; see generally Riordan v. BOCES of Rochester, 4 A.D.3d 869, 870, 772 N.Y.S.2d 428; Sweeting v. Board of Coop. Educ. Servs., 83 A.D.2d 103, 113-114, 443 N.Y.S.2d 910, lv. denied 56 N.Y.2d 503, 450 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 435 N.E.2d 1100) and, in addition, plaintiff's work was conducted at the direction of ACTS in an area under its control (see Zaher v. Shopwell, Inc., 18 A.D.3d 339, 795 N.Y.S.2d 223; Riordan, 4 A.D.3d at 870, 772 N.Y.S.2d 428).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: April 28, 2006
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)