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.
Nicholas LETTERESE, Plaintiff–Appellant, 595052/16 v. A & F COMMERCIAL BUILDERS, L.L.C., et al., Defendants–Respondents. [And a Third–Party Action]
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (James E. d'Auguste, J.), entered August 16, 2018, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion of defendant A & F Commercial Builders, L.L.C. (A & F) for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 241(6)200 and common-law negligence claims as against it, and granted the motion of defendant Sol Goldman Investments, LLC (Sol Goldman) for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) claim as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff's Labor Law § 241(6) was properly dismissed, since Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23–1.7(e)(2) does not apply to the facts of this case. The affixed rebar dowel over which plaintiff fell was an integral part of the work being performed (see Thomas v. Goldman Sachs Headquarters, LLC, 109 A.D.3d 421, 422, 970 N.Y.S.2d 224 [1st Dept. 2013]; Tucker v. Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y., 36 A.D.3d 417, 828 N.Y.S.2d 311 [1st Dept. 2007] ).
Plaintiff's Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims as against A & F were also properly dismissed, since the condition that led to plaintiff's accident, a protruding rebar dowel that allegedly blended into the surrounding area, was created by the means and methods of the work of plaintiff's employer and its subcontractor (see O'Sullivan v. IDI Constr. Co., Inc., 28 A.D.3d 225, 226, 813 N.Y.S.2d 373 [1st Dept. 2006], affd 7 N.Y.3d 805, 822 N.Y.S.2d 745, 855 N.E.2d 1159 [2006]; McCormick v. 257 W. Genesee, LLC, 78 A.D.3d 1581, 913 N.Y.S.2d 435 [4th Dept. 2010] ). A & F did not exercise supervisory control over the work of plaintiff, plaintiff's employer, or its subcontractor, nor is there any evidence that it directed the contractors to cease using the orange rebar caps, upon the discovery that the caps were pulling off waterproofing when removed. That A & F was allegedly aware that plaintiff's employer would cease using orange caps is insufficient to impart liability.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
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.
Docket No: 11013
Decided: February 13, 2020
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)