Second Department reverses Nassau County decision that granted Plaintiff’s § 241(6) claim
In a recent decision, the Appellate Division, Second Department reversed a Supreme Court, Nassau County order that denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to Labor Law § 200 and granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to Labor Law § 241(6) as predicated on a violation of New York Industrial Code § 23-1.5(c)(3)(“General responsibility of employers”).
In Martinez v. Nader Enters., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 00655, plaintiff alleged that while he was employed with a general contractor at a construction site, he was injured while using a grinder without a blade guard when the grinder kicked back and cut his leg. The general contractor owned and provided the subject grinder.
After the conclusion of discovery, defendant (not the general contractor) moved for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s §§ 200 and 241(6) causes of action. Plaintiff opposed that motion, and cross-moved for summary judgment as to his § 241(6) cause of action. The Supreme Court, Nassau County denied the defendant’s motion and granted the plaintiff’s cross-motion.
The Second Department disagreed. In its decision, the Second Department held that defendant met his prima facie burden on summary judgment by establishing that they did not have the authority to supervise or control the manner and methos of plaintiff’s work. Defendant’s submission established that it did not interact with plaintiff or his coworkers during the construction and did not provide any equipment or tools.
Plaintiff’s § 241(6) cause of action was predicated on a violation of Industrial Code § 23-1.5(c)(3), which states, generally, that all safety devices, safeguards and equipment shall be kept in sound and operable and should be repaired or immediately removed from the job site if damaged. The Second Department held that the plaintiff ultimately failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant had notice of any defect or unsafe condition with regard to the grinder’s safety device, the guard, that caused plaintiff’s injury. Accordingly, the lower Court should have denied plaintiff’s cross-motion.
It’s crucial to remember that the Labor Law § 200 causes of action come in two flavors – “means and method” and “premises condition.” When dealing with a “means and method” case, in order to be found liable, defendant has to exhibit the requisite authority to supervise or control the work.
The Martinez 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.