Not All Defendants are Welcome at the Labor Law Party
In a recent decision, the Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed a Supreme Court, Suffolk County decision that granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action.
In Argueta v. Hall & Wright, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 04445, plaintiff alleges that he sustained injuries while working on a home renovation project. During the course of his work, he was on the roof of a single-family home installing a bracket on its ridge to create a tie-off point for roofers. While performing the work, plaintiff lost his balance, slid down the side of the roof, and fell on to the ground in front of the house.
Plaintiff then commenced an action against the defendants, who included the property owner and construction manager. Plaintiff’s employer was the general contractor. At the conclusion of discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment.
With regard to the construction manager, the Supreme Court, Suffolk County granted their motion for summary judgment, finding that the construction manager played a role in coordinating and monitoring the progress of the project, but plaintiff’s employer (the general contractor) hired the subcontractors. The construction manager also did not direct any of the project’s workers, and only had general supervisory authority to oversee the progress of the work. As such, it was not an “owner, contractor” or one of their agents as contemplated under Labor Law § 240(1).
The Supreme Court, Suffolk County also granted the homeowner’s, a corporation, motion for summary judgment, noting that it qualified under the homeowner’s exception to Labor Law § 240(1). The homeowner corporation submitted evidence that, at the time of plaintiff’s accident, one of its members intended to reside in the home with her husband, who had later passed away, upon completion of the project.
The Second Department affirmed the lower Court’s decision, granting the homeowner and construction manager’s motions for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action.
We love a case that has a little bit of everything.
Here, it’s important to remember that construction managers aren’t necessarily automatically correct Labor Law defendants (as agents of the owners and general contractors) unless they exercise the requisite level of control at the project. This case also serves as a reminder that even a corporation can qualify as an owner under the homeowners’ exception to the Labor Law.
The Argueta v. Hall & Wright, LLC decision can be found here.
For additional information, contact Philip D. Priore, Esq. and/or Michael J. Shields, Esq.
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.
