In a recent decision the Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the lower Court\u2019s decision that denied defendant\u2019s motion for summary judgment to dismiss the causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law \u00a7 200 and common-law negligence, along with all cross-claims asserted against it.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In Samperi v. City Safety Compliance Corp.<\/em>, plaintiff alleged he was injured while working on a construction site at a premises owned by one of the defendants when an outward swinging gate in the perimeter fencing swung open and hit him, causing him to fall.\u00a0 The defendant owner had hired a fencing subcontractor to install perimeter fencing and access gates at the construction site.\u00a0 As a result of the subject incident, plaintiff asserted causes of action alleging violations of Labor Law \u00a7\u00a7 200 and 241(6). \u00a0<\/p>\n The fencing subcontractor moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against it.\u00a0 The Supreme Court, Kings County granted the portions of the fencing subcontractor\u2019s motion for summary judgment as they pertained to Labor Law \u00a7 241(6), but denied the portions of the motion as they pertained to plaintiff\u2019s \u00a7 200 claim, common-law negligence claim and all cross-claims.\u00a0 The defendant fencing subcontractor appealed.\u00a0<\/p>\n In upholding the lower Court\u2019s decision, the Second Department illustrated the applicable standard for a defendant making a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment with respect to Labor Law \u00a7 200.[1]<\/a>\u00a0 First, the fencing subcontractor established that it did not have authority to supervise or control the means and methods of the manner of plaintiff\u2019s work, so to the extent that the Labor Law \u00a7 200 claim was based on a \u201cmeans and method\u201d theory, the moving defendant established entitlement to summary judgment.\u00a0<\/p>\n However, to the extent that plaintiff\u2019s Labor Law \u00a7 200 claim was premised on a \u201cdangerous condition\u201d, the fencing subcontractor failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, because it failed to demonstrate that it did not create the alleged dangerous condition by installing an outward swinging gate in the perimeter fencing.<\/p>\n