Russin v. Louis N. Picciano & Son

In Russin v. Louis N. Picciano & Son, 54 N.Y.2d 311 [1981] the Court of Appeals considered whether prime contractors could be liable under Labor Law 200 and 241. In that case, the plaintiff, an employee of the general contractor, was injured while dismantling a scaffold at the direction of his employer. He sued, among others, the HVAC prime contractor. Our interpretation of the statutory "agent" language appropriately limits the liability of a contractor as agent for a general contractor or owner for job site injuries to those areas and activities within the scope of the work delegated or, in other words, to the particular agency created. The HVAC contractor, for example, was the owner's agent with respect to the heating, ventilation and air-conditioning work. It was not the owner's agent with respect to the general construction activity which produced the plaintiff's injury, i.e., the erection, maintenance and dismantling of the scaffolding equipment. (Id. at 318.) The HVAC contractor was "never delegated the general construction work in which plaintiff was engaged at the time of his injury." (Id.)