Nancy Lewis and Kevin McCardle won summary judgment for their client, the lessee of an apartment, dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1), 241(6), 200 and common-law negligence claims. The Court agreed with Fleischner Potash’s argument that as a lessee, the client qualifies as an “owner” who is entitled to the single family dwelling exemption in Labor Law Sections 240(1) and 241(6) because he did not direct or control the manner or methods of the plaintiff’s work. The court rejected the plaintiff’s claim that the exemption was inapplicable due to the defendant’s intention to use the apartment for commercial purposes (renting out rooms when they were not in use by him or his co-lessee). Furthermore, the court agreed that Labor Law 240(1) would not apply to situations like this one where (1) no significant elevation-related hazard existed, and (2) securing devices would be counterproductive, illogical, and not expected based upon the nature of the undertaking/work being performed (removal of a mirror from a wall). In addition, the court also held that Labor Law 241(6) did not as there is no evidence that any violation of the New York Industrial Code provisions cited by the plaintiff proximately caused his injuries. Finally, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s Labor Law 200 and common-law negligence claims on the ground that the defendant did not supervise, direct or control the manner or methods in which the plaintiff performed his work, but rather, just told the plaintiff what work he wanted him to perform in the apartment.
To learn more about this result or other ways that Fleischner Potash can help your claims team, please contact Deanna Hazen at email@example.com .
A copy of the Order granting summary judgment can be found here:Ramales order