Sanatass v. Consolidated Investing Co

In Sanatass v. Consolidated Investing Co. (10 NY3d 333 [2008]), the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's grant of summary judgment to a property owner, even though the tenant contracted for the work which injured the plaintiff, without the owner's knowledge and in violation of the lease. The Court held, within the context of Labor Law 240 (1), that our precedents make clear that so long as a violation of the statute proximately results in injury, the owner's lack of notice or control over the work is not conclusive - this is precisely what is meant by absolute or strict liability in this context. We have made perfectly plain that even the lack of "any ability" on the owner's part to ensure compliance with the statute is legally irrelevant. As we have repeatedly stated, section 240 (1) exists solely for the benefit of workers and operates to place the ultimate responsibility for safety violations on owners and contractors, not the workers (id. at 340, 342).