McLeod v. Corp. of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

• Decision Date: 26 June 2007
• Docket Number: 2006-11235.
• Citation: McLeod v. Corp. of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 41 A.D.3d 796, 839 N.Y.S.2d 164, 2007 NY Slip Op 5702 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
• Parties: BERT McLEOD et al., Respondents, v. CORPORATION OF PRESIDING BISHOP OF CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS, Defendant, and EAST COAST CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

41 A.D.3d 796

839 N.Y.S.2d 164

2007 NY Slip Op 05702

BERT McLEOD et al., Respondents, v. CORPORATION OF PRESIDING BISHOP OF CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS, Defendant, and EAST COAST CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., Appellant.

2006-11235.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.

Decided June 26, 2007.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant East Coast Construction Group, Inc., appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), dated September 20, 2006, as denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 and commonlaw negligence insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and those branches of the motion of the defendant East Coast Construction Group, Inc., which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence insofar as asserted against it are granted.

The plaintiff Bert McLeod (hereinafter the plaintiff) was employed by a nonparty subcontractor at a construction site where the defendant East Coast Construction Group, Inc. (hereinafter the defendant), was the general contractor. Acting on his employer's instructions, the plaintiff used a wood beam to support the jib of a crane while disassembling the crane, and was injured when the beam struck him. The plaintiff and his wife commenced this action against the defendant and the owner of the site, seeking damages, inter alia, for the plaintiff's injuries based upon alleged violations of the Labor Law and commonlaw negligence. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. The Supreme Court granted those branches of the defendant's motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) insofar as asserted against it, but denied those branches of its motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 and commonlaw negligence insofar as asserted against it. We reverse.

The accident here stems not "from a dangerous condition on the premises" (Keating v Nanuet Bd. of Educ., 40 AD3d 706, 708 [2007]) but "from the manner in which the work was being performed" (id.). To be held liable under Labor Law § 200 and for common-law negligence arising from the manner in which work is performed at a work site, a general contractor must have actually exercised supervision and control over the work performed at the site (see Lombardi v Stout, 80 NY2d 290, 295 [1992]; Guerra v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 35 AD3d 810, 811 [2006]; Parisi v Loewen Dev. of Wappinger Falls, 5 AD3d 648 [2004]). General supervisory authority for the purpose of overseeing the progress of the work and inspecting the work product is insufficient to impose liability (see Dos Santos v STV Engrs., Inc., 8 AD3d 223, 224 [2004]). In order to impose liability upon it, a general...