Giambalvo v. Chemical Bank

• Decision Date: 12 April 1999
• Citation: 260 A.D.2d 432,687 N.Y.S.2d 728
• Parties: WILLIAM GIAMBALVO, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>CHEMICAL BANK, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant.<BR>KNIGHT MAINTENANCE CORP., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

260 A.D.2d 432

687 N.Y.S.2d 728

WILLIAM GIAMBALVO, Respondent,

v.CHEMICAL BANK, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant.

KNIGHT MAINTENANCE CORP., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Decided April 12, 1999.

Miller, J. P., Santucci, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the complaint and third-party complaint are dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated October 23, 1997, is dismissed as academic; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellants are awarded one bill of costs payable by the respondent.

The plaintiff fell from a ladder while changing a light bulb in premises leased by the defendant Chemical Bank (hereinafter Chemical). The plaintiff subsequently commenced this action against Chemical, contending, inter alia, that it had violated Labor Law § 200 by providing him with a defective ladder. After the liability phase of a bifurcated trial, the jury found that Chemical had violated Labor Law § 200, and was 33 1/3% at fault in the happening of the plaintiff's accident.

On appeal, Chemical contends that the liability verdict should be set aside because it did not control or supervise the plaintiff's work, and did not own the ladder which caused the plaintiff's fall. We agree. Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty of a landowner to provide workers with a reasonably safe place to work (see, Lombardi v Stout, 80 NY2d 290, 294). "An implicit precondition to this duty `is that the party charged with that responsibility have the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury'" (Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876, 877, quoting Russin v Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311, 317). Thus, liability will be imposed upon an owner under Labor Law § 200 only where the plaintiff's injuries were sustained as the result of a dangerous condition at the work site, rather than as the result of the manner in which the work was performed, and then only if the owner exercised supervision and control over the work performed at the site or had actual or constructive notice of the unsafe condition causing the accident (see, Lombardi v Stout, supra; Allen v Cloutier Constr. Corp., 44 NY2d 290, 299; Sprague v Peckham Materials Corp., 240 AD2d 392; Seaman v Chance Co., 197 AD2d 612). Here, there is no evidence that Chemical supervised or controlled the plaintiff's work in any manner, or that it directed him to use the allegedly defective ladder....