From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brown v. Muthig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 19, 1995
220 A.D.2d 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

October 19, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Sullivan County (Bradley, J.).


Plaintiff, a correction officer at Sullivan Correctional Facility in Sullivan County, supervised various inmate work gangs as part of the facility's work program. Pursuant to a project request by defendant Cornell Cooperative Extension Association of Sullivan County (hereinafter the Association), plaintiff was overseeing a work gang at the 4-H camp in Claryville. During such activity, he fell off a ladder and sustained injuries. He thereafter commenced an action alleging common-law negligence and a violation of Labor Law § 240. At the close of trial, Supreme Court directed a verdict in favor of plaintiff on the Labor Law § 240 cause of action and proceeded to a determination of damages. Defendants appeal.

Defendants first contend that, inasmuch as the Association is an unincorporated association formed pursuant to County Law § 224 (8) (b), they are immune from liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240. While we agree that individual liability against Association members is limited to instances of their actual fault or negligence ( see, County Law § 224 [b]), and that liability under the Labor Law is vicarious, we do not find the provisions of County Law § 224 (8) (b) to preclude this action against the Association since judgment would be rendered solely against its funds or property ( see, County Law § 224 [b]).

While mindful that Labor Law § 240 is to be liberally construed for the purpose of protecting workers ( see, Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 N.Y.2d 555; Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co., 78 N.Y.2d 509; Pigott v. State of New York, 199 A.D.2d 734), defendants assert that plaintiff was not an "employee" pursuant to the statute. We disagree. While a prison inmate who performs work at the direction of State officers would not be an employee subject to the protection of the Labor Law ( D'Argenio v. Village of Homer, 202 A.D.2d 883), plaintiff here remained an employee of the Department of Correctional Services throughout his oversight of this project.

Mercure, J.P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Brown v. Muthig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 19, 1995
220 A.D.2d 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Brown v. Muthig

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD BROWN, Respondent, v. DOROTHY MUTHIG, as President of the Sullivan…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Oct 19, 1995

Citations

220 A.D.2d 898 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
632 N.Y.S.2d 688

Citing Cases

Richel v. Village of Angola

We reject plaintiffs' contention that the court erred in dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. As an…

Peglow v. L a Builders

nimously reversed on the law with costs, motions denied, complaint reinstated and third-party complaint…