Trial Practice

In Rizzuto v. Wenger Contracting Co., 91 NY2d 343, 670 NYS2d 816 (1998), plaintiff, a subcontractor’s employee, slipped on fuel accidently sprayed on the floor by the owner’s employees at a time when plaintiff was scheduled to work in that area. Deposition testimony established that defendant owner was responsible to coordinate the work and ensure that an area was not utilized by the owner while the contractors were working. The court held that there were triable issues of fact as to whether defendant’s ability to coordinate the work activities gave it the requisite control over the methods of the subcontractors and other work site employees to prevent the creation of the unsafe condition or plaintiff’s exposure to it.¹

Second Department Cases

Two recent decisions of the Appellate Division, Second Department, examined the applicable standards to determine the imposition of liability upon one- and two-family homeowners under Labor Law §200. In Ortega v. Puccia, 2008 WL 4742195, (2nd Dept. 2008), the accident arose out of the methods or manner of work of the contractor rather than the dangerous or defective condition of the premises. Plaintiff was injured working in a single-family home while using an allegedly defective scaffold supplied by his employer. The issue was whether defendant homeowner had sufficient supervisory control of the manner in which the work was being conducted to support the imposition of liability under §200. The court noted that there was no exemption for one and two-family homeowners under §200:

In Chowdhury v. Rodriguez, 2008WL4816553 (2nd Dept. 2008), the court addressed the more novel issue of the liability of a homeowner who provided a defective ladder to plaintiff, but did not supervise and direct the work. The court posed the question: