Simon Szlapak v. The L.C. Whitford, Co., Inc.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction site injury and whether a general contractor can be liable under New York Labor Law § 200 for the manner and means of the work.
The trial court denied the general contractor’s summary judgment motion on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence to the extent based on the manner in which the work was performed, but granted it as to claims premised on Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) violations and premises defect/notice.
The Appellate Division reversed the denial, granted defendant’s motion in full, and dismissed the complaint.
Under New York Labor Law § 200 [codifies the common-law duty of owners and contractors to provide a safe workplace; liability requires control of the work or notice of a dangerous premises condition], a general contractor is not liable where the injury arises from the contractor’s methods unless it actually directed or controlled how the work was performed. The record showed defendant did not specify how the micropile drilling should be done; general safety oversight, authority to stop work, or monitoring timing/quality are insufficient to show direction and control. The plaintiff’s premises-condition theory was outside the scope of review because he did not cross-appeal.
Background
Plaintiff, employed by a subcontractor hired to drill micropiles for a bridge replacement, was assisting coworkers when he was struck by a breakout wrench during drilling. He sued the general contractor for Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, Erie County (Dennis E. Ward, J.), denied the general contractor’s summary judgment motion on Labor Law § 200 and negligence claims based on the manner of work, but granted the motion as to alleged OSHA-based violations and as to premises condition claims grounded in actual or constructive notice.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Fourth Department reversed the order insofar as appealed from, granted summary judgment in its entirety to the general contractor, and dismissed the complaint. It held the defendant did not direct or control the manner or methods of the subcontractor’s work; telling workers what to do, having general safety oversight or stop-work authority, and monitoring timing/quality do not constitute the requisite control. The court declined to consider a premises-condition argument because plaintiff did not cross-appeal.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that for method-and-manner claims under Labor Law § 200, plaintiffs must show the owner/GC actually directed or controlled how the work was performed. General supervisory authority, safety compliance oversight, or stop-work power alone is insufficient. Also underscores appellate scope-of-review limits absent a cross-appeal.
Without evidence that a general contractor directed how the work was performed, Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims arising from the methods of the work will not survive summary judgment.