91 A.D.3d 556, 937 N.Y.S.2d 196 (1st Dept. 2012) (Jan. 26, 2012)
The court dismissed the §200 and common law negligence clauses because the plaintiff failed to establish that the managing agent did not directly control the method or manner of plaintiff’s work, or have actual or constructive notice of the unsafe condition. With respect to the §241(1) and 241(6) claims the court refused to search the record and reach a determination on the merits of the plaintiff’s claim. Also, there were issues of fact on whether the defendant had authority to supervise and control the plaintiff’s work as required under §240(1) and 241(6).
Practice Note: A review of the facts of the case do, however, indicate that plaintiff’s actions may constitute a sole proximate cause.
Topics: Actual or Constructive Notice of Dangerous Conditions, Authority or Control Over Work, Common Law Negligence, Manner and Methods, Sole Proximate Cause