A Simple Application of The Labor Law By First Department

As part of our continuing commitment to provide outstanding representation and to serve as an information resource, we wish to inform you of a recent decision interpreting the Labor Law.  Although applying the Labor Law can be complicated because of the varying fact patterns which are encountered, there are times when the application of the Labor Law can be very simple.  A recent case from the First Department demonstrates how simple it can be.

In Ortiz v. Igby Huntlaw LLC, the plaintiff was an employee of non-party Uriu, LLC and was injured when he fell from a ladder while painting an apartment owned by defendant Igby Huntlaw LLC, which was dismissed from the action.  A.E. Greyson & Co. was the general contractor and its contract with Igby Huntlaw LLC specifically excluded painting the apartment. Uriu, LLC, was hired to do the painting.

Defendant, A.E. Greyson & Co. moved for summary judgment. It argued that the plaintiff’s work at the time of his accident was outside the scope of what has been contracted for by the owner and general contractor and that therefore, the general contractor had no right to control the work and therefore could not be liable under Labor Law Section 240(1) or 241(6). The lower court denied A.E. Greyson & Co.’s motion for summary judgment and A.E. Greyson & Co. appealed. The First Department reversed.

The First Department found that A.E. Greyson & Co. was entitled to summary judgment.  The Court noted that where, as here, the plaintiff’s work at the time of the accident is outside the scope of what has been contracted for by the owner and general contractor, the general contractor has no right to control the work. Therefore, the general contractor cannot be liable under Labor Law Section 240(1) or 241(6). In addition, because A.E. Greyson & Co. had no authority to control Ortiz’s injury-producing work, Ortiz’s common-law negligence and Labor Law Section 200 claims were also dismissed. Since plaintiff was doing work outside of the scope of the contract and which was specifically excluded, the general contractor could not be liable.

As with all Labor Law cases, it is critical to analyze the parties, their responsibilities and the contracts to determine whether a valid Labor Law claim exists. If it does not, a motion for summary judgment is clearly in order.

Should you have any questions, please cal.

Thomas M. Bona