Practice point: The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of that portion of defendants' motion
seeking dismissal of plaintiff's Labor Law § 200 and common law
negligence claims. There are questions of fact concerning whether the defendant property owner had actual or constructive notice of the
icy condition that allegedly caused plaintiff, a core driller employed
by a nonparty, to slip and fall.
The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's Labor Law § 241(6)
claim insofar as it was predicated on a violation of Industrial Code
23-1.7(d). This regulation has no application here, as plaintiff fell in a parking lot, not "floor,
passageway, walkway, scaffold, platform or other elevated working
surface," within the purview of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d).
Student note: On the § 200 and common law
negligence claims.the Appellate Division found questions of fact as to whether a geotechnical engineering firm hired to assure compliance with
construction plans and specifications, had control over plaintiff's work
and the work site, in which case summary judgment is precluded.
Case: Borner v. Fordham Univ., NY Slip Op 00696 (1st Dept. 2015)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: An abutting landowner's liability for a fall on a public sidewalk.
