New York Supreme Court determines that tenant of a property is not liable for plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 and Labor Law § 241 claims because tenant did not exercise any control over plaintiff’s work.

An individual working for a subcontractor fell while at Cobblestone Restaurant, which was owned by Encore and operated by Cobblestone. The tenant, Cobblestone, moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 and Labor Law § 241 claims because it was not the contractor or owner of the property. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against the tenant, Cobblestone, because it was neither an owner, contractor, nor agent thereof having ability to supervise or control the plaintiff’s work. The court also dismissed the owner’s cross-claim against the tenant for common law indemnity because Cobblestone did not supervise or control the plaintiff’s work or otherwise contribute to the causation of the accident. However, the court did not dismiss the owner’s claim for contractual indemnity against the tenant because Cobblestone failed to establish that the terms of the agreement did not require contractual indemnity. 

This case demonstrates that the litigation involving a plaintiff’s Labor Law claim usually involves multiple parties and multiple claims. 
 

_{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}