Alexandre Veloso v. Scaturro Brothers, Inc. d/b/a Alpine Painting & Sandblasting Contractors, et al.; Hunter Roberts Construction Group, LLC
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Construction/lead-abatement injury case addressing whether a construction manager (Hunter Roberts Construction Group, LLC (HRCG)) can be treated as a statutory agent liable under New York Labor Law §§ 240(1) [imposes absolute liability on owners, contractors, and their agents for elevation-related safety risks] and 241(6) [requires compliance with specific Industrial Code safety regulations], and whether Labor Law § 200 [codifies the duty to provide a safe workplace based on supervision/control or notice] and common-law negligence claims can stand.
Supreme Court denied HRCG’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, declining to dismiss the Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 claims and common-law negligence.
The Appellate Division dismissed plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against HRCG.
There was no evidence HRCG actually directed or controlled plaintiff’s injury-producing work and it lacked access to the lead-abatement containment area; however, triable issues remained as to HRCG’s potential status and authority under §§ 240(1) and 241(6) given its contractual safety powers.
Background
Plaintiff Alexandre Veloso, employed by a lead paint subcontractor, was injured while performing lead abatement within a containment area on a construction project that had no general contractor. Hunter Roberts Construction Group, LLC (HRCG) served as construction manager under an agreement that granted it broad authority to generally supervise subcontractors, implement and enforce a project safety plan, ensure compliance with applicable safety laws, and stop unsafe work. Another provision, deposition testimony, and HRCG’s lack of lead-abatement licensing indicated HRCG was not responsible for overseeing the lead paint removal and was barred from entering the active containment area.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, New York County, denied HRCG’s motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the complaint and cross-claims, allowing all Labor Law and negligence claims to proceed.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified: it dismissed the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against HRCG due to the absence of evidence that HRCG supervised, directed, or controlled the injury-producing work and its lack of access to the containment area. It otherwise affirmed the denial as to Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6), finding factual disputes about whether HRCG, as construction manager with contractual safety authority and power to stop work, functioned as a statutory agent of the owner for those provisions, notwithstanding testimony and contractual language suggesting HRCG did not oversee lead abatement.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that a construction manager can face liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) as a statutory agent where it has authority to supervise the work or enforce safety, even without being the general contractor, but § 200 and common-law negligence require proof of actual supervision/control over the injury-producing work or access/notice of the unsafe condition.
Construction managers with broad contractual safety authority may be proper defendants under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6); absent actual control of the injury-producing work or access to the work area, § 200 and negligence claims will be dismissed.