Russin v. Louis N. Picciano & Son

• Citation: 445 N.Y.S.2d 127,54 N.Y.2d 311,429 N.E.2d 805
• Court: New York Court of Appeals
• Decision Date: 24 November 1981
• Parties: , 429 N.E.2d 805 George RUSSIN et al., Appellants, v. LOUIS N. PICCIANO & SON et al., Defendants-Respondents and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants. Village of Endicott et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

Page 127

445 N.Y.S.2d 127

54 N.Y.2d 311, 429 N.E.2d 805

George RUSSIN et al., Appellants, v. LOUIS N. PICCIANO & SON et al., Defendants-Respondents and

Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Village of Endicott et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 24, 1981.

Stephen D. Smyk, Binghamton, for appellants

Robert H. Wedlake, Binghamton, for Louis N. Picciano & Son, defendant-respondent and third-party plaintiff-appellant.

Martin J. Kane, Binghamton, for Matco Elec. Co., Inc., defendant-respondent and third-party plaintiff-appellant.

Edward B. Flink, Binghamton, for Stellmack Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp., defendant-respondent and third-party plaintiff-appellant.

Robert H. Reeder, Binghamton, for A. J. Cerasaro, Inc., third-party defendant-respondent.

Patrick J. Leary, Syracuse, for Village of Endicott, third-party defendant-respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

WACHTLER, Judge.

The question presented on this appeal is whether various prime contractors not in privity with the general contractor of a construction project may be held liable under sections 200, 240 and 241 of the Labor Law for construction site injuries sustained by a workman employed by the general contractor in the course of completing work for which the general contractor was solely responsible. We agree with the Appellate Division that the prime contractors incur no liability for personal injuries arising out of work not specifically delegated to them.

Plaintiff George Russin was injured in a construction site accident which occurred at the En-Joie Golf Course in the Village of Endicott, New York. At the time of the accident plaintiff was employed by the general contractor for the project, A. J. Cerasaro, Inc. (Cerasaro). The plaintiff commenced this action against defendants Matco Electric Co., Inc. (Matco), Louis N. Picciano & Son (Picciano) and Stellmack Air Conditioning Refrigeration Corp. (Stellmack) for personal injuries arising out of alleged violations of sections 200, 240 and 241 of the Labor Law. Neither the Village of Endicott, the owner of the golf course, nor Cerasaro, as general contractor, were named as defendants.

The construction of a new clubhouse at the En-Joie Golf Course proceeded pursuant to separate contracts between the Village of Endicott and seven individual contractors. These contracts were entered into between the owner and the various contractors, rather than between the general contractor and those contractors, and therefore constituted separate prime contracts. The plumbing contract was awarded to Picciano, the electrical contract to Matco and the heating, ventilation and air-conditioning contract to Stellmack.

Plaintiff was injured while descending from a scaffold he was dismantling at the direction of his employer, Cerasaro. He stepped on a ladder leaning against the scaffold to negotiate the last few feet of the descent and as he did so it turned and gave way, causing him to fall. The ladder was owned by Picciano.

The general contractor, Cerasaro, was responsible for the co-ordination and execution of all the work under all the contracts. Cerasaro was also in full control of plaintiff and the area in which he was working at the time of his injury. The Appellate Division found that as prime contractors, the defendants had no contractual arrangement with the general contractor and were, therefore, not in a position to control any of the activity which generated the injury. Accordingly, the Appellate Division held that defendants could not be liable to plaintiff under sections 200, 240 and 241 of the Labor Law. We agree.

Section 200 of the Labor Law merely codified the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or general contractor to provide construction site workmen with a safe place to work (Allen v. Cloutier Constr. Corp., 44 N.Y.2d 290, 299, 405 N.Y.S.2d 630, 376 N.E.2d 1276). An implicit precondition to this duty to provide a safe place to work is that the party charged with that responsibility have the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury to enable it to avoid or correct an unsafe condition (Reynolds v. Brady & Co., 38 A.D.2d 746, 329 N.Y.S.2d 624). As defendants' contracts were with the Village of Endicott and not with plaintiff's employer, the general contractor, they had no ability to control either plaintiff or the dismantling of the scaffolding which eventuated in his injury. Without this authority to control the activity producing the injury, defendants could not be liable to plaintiff under section 200 for failure to provide a safe place to work.

Similarly, sections 240 and 241 impose no liability on defendants for plaintiff's injury. Although the statutes appear to impose liability unequivocally on "contractors and owners and their agents " (Labor Law, § 240, subd. 1; § 241 ), this language must be interpreted in light of the historical development of these provisions.

It is evident from the legislative history of the 1969 amendments to sections 240 and 241 (L.1969, ch. 1108, §§ 1, 3), that these revisions were intended to shift responsibility for construction site injuries from those parties without control of the injury producing activity to the general contractor and owner. Thus, the...