New York Labor Law 200

In O'Sullivan v. IDI Const. Co., Inc. (28 AD3d 225, 227, 813 N.Y.S.2d 373 [1st Dept 2006]), the First Department held that the fact that a general contractor had "'an on-site safety manager with responsibility for the safety of the work done by subcontractors' does not . . . provide any basis for imposing liability on the general contractor based on an injury allegedly caused by a subcontractor's work." Similarly, in Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority (31 AD3d 347, 350, 819 N.Y.S.2d 732 [1st Dept 2006]), the First Department held that the "testimony of defendant's assistant project manager that he inspected the work site several times a week and would report any safety violations he observed is insufficient to support a finding of supervision or control under Labor Law 200." In Singh v. Black Diamonds LLC, 24 AD3d 138, 140, 805 N.Y.S.2d 58 [1st Dept 2005], the First Department held that the plaintiff's common-law negligence and Labor Law 200 claims were properly dismissed against defendant Bovis, the construction manager, for the following reasons: In this matter, it is undisputed that plaintiff never took orders from Bovis and that Bovis had no responsibility for overseeing the work performed by him or his employer. Moreover, the testimony of Bovis's project superintendent: that he conducted regular walk-throughs and, if he observed an unsafe condition, had the authority to find whoever was responsible for the condition and have them correct it or, if necessary, stop the work; that he discussed covering the subject hole in the roof with [the subcontractor's] representative; and that he had inspected the plywood in question after it had been nailed down over the hole, simply indicates Bovis's general supervision and coordination of the work site and is insufficient to trigger liability. (Singh at 140)