Lombardi v. Stout

24 Citing cases

  1. Clayton v. United States

    913 F. Supp. 2d 80 (D.N.J. 2012)   Cited 5 times

    Because the Army's level of supervision of Clayton and the Eastern team is a disputed issue of material fact, the Court cannot grant summary judgment on this ground. The Army cites, inter alia, Lombardi v. Stout, 178 A.D.2d 208, 211, 577 N.Y.S.2d 592 (1991), aff'd as modified,80 N.Y.2d 290, 590 N.Y.S.2d 55, 604 N.E.2d 117 (1992), but this case specifically notes that, although there is a general rule that an owner is not liable for the contractor's defective equipment or performance, “[t]here is an exception to this rule imposed where the owner assumes direct responsibility for the method of work performed.” Id. at 210, 577 N.Y.S.2d 592.

  2. Friebely v. C.D. Perry & Sons

    624 F. Supp. 3d 160 (N.D.N.Y. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    Thus, under Labor Law § 200, "an owner or general contractor will not be held liable for a subcontractor's failure to furnish safe equipment ...." Edwards v. State Univ. Constr. Fund, 196 A.D.3d 778, 782 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2021); Lombardi v. Stout, 178 A.D.2d 208, 577 N.Y.S.2d 592, 595 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1991) (stating that the owner or general contractor is not "required to protect the employees from defects in the [sub]contractor's tools and methods."). The Second Department addressed the distinction between the theories of liability under Labor Law § 200 in Ortega v. Puccia, 57 A.D.3d 54, 866 N.Y.S.2d 323 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008).

  3. Feigles v. Costal Lumber Co.

    32 F. Supp. 2d 109 (W.D.N.Y. 1998)   Cited 2 times

    Foster v. Spevack, 198 A.D.2d 892, 893, 605 N.Y.S.2d 706 (4th Dep't 1993). See also Lombardi v. Stout, 178 A.D.2d 208, 577 N.Y.S.2d 592 (1st Dep't), aff'd, 80 N.Y.2d 290, 590 N.Y.S.2d 55, 604 N.E.2d 117 (1992). Analysis

  4. Guevara-Ayala v. Trump Palace/Parc LLC

    2022 N.Y. Slip Op. 3049 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    The Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims should have also been dismissed as against the Board because plaintiff's accident arose out of his use of a scaffold system supplied by either 4 Star, the general contractor, or Swing, a subcontractor. The case therefore falls into the means-and-methods category of Labor Law § 200 cases, in which liability depends on the exercise of supervision and control over the work, and it is undisputed that the Board did not exercise supervision or control over either 4 Star's or Swing's work (see Persichilli v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 16 N.Y.2d 136, 145 [1965]; see e.g. Lombardi v Stout, 178 A.D.2d 208 [1st Dept 1991 ], mod on other grounds 80 N.Y.2d 290 [1992]). The motion court erred in ruling that the Board's contract with 4 Star was inadmissible; the parties to the contract waived any hearsay objection by failing to raise any in their respective motion papers (see Lois v Flintlock Constr. Servs., LLC, 202 A.D.3d 481, 481 [1st Dept 2022]).

  5. Pazmino v. Woodside Development Company

    212 A.D.2d 520 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 11 times

    We stress in this regard that the mere occasional presence at the work site of Woodside partner Abram Shnay did not impose liability on Woodside in the absence of the exercise of supervision or control over the work performed at the site. Pursuant to Labor Law § 200, an owner is not responsible for the negligent acts of others over whom it had no control or direction (see, Lombardi v. Stout, 178 A.D.2d 208, 211-212). Balletta, J.P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

  6. Mosher v. Villa

    184 A.D.2d 1000 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 28 times

    Here, the removal of the tree constituted site preparation, which was incidental and necessary to the erection of the building (see, Nagel v. Metzger, supra, at 9). To the extent that the case of Lombardi v. Stout ( 178 A.D.2d 208) is authority to the contrary, we decline to follow it. The court properly dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action against defendant Seneca Roadways inasmuch as Seneca Roadways was not an owner, was not a contractor responsible for the work performed by the injured plaintiff, and did not direct or control the work (see, Magrath v. Migliore Constr. Co., 139 A.D.2d 893).

  7. Rodriguez v. Wheeler

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 32332 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty to provide workers with a reasonable safe place to work and so if Plaintiff s Labor Law § 200 claims fail so too does his common law negligence claims (Mejia v. Levenbaum, 30 A.D.3d 262 [1st Dept 2006]). As stated by the First Department, under Labor Law § 200, the owner is not required to supervise the contractor for the benefit of the contractor's employees unless the owner assumed direct responsibility for the method of work performed (Lombardi v. Stout, 178 A.D.2d 208, 212 [1st Dept 1991]). Justine did not assume direct responsibility for the method of work performed by Mr. Rodriguez.

  8. Rodriguez v. Wheeler

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 32331 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty to provide workers with a reasonable safe place to work and so if Plaintiff s Labor Law § 200 claims fail so too does his common law negligence claims (Mejia v Levenbaum, 30 A.D.3d 262 [1st Dept 2006]). As stated by the First Department, under Labor Law § 200, the owner is not required to supervise the contractor for the benefit of the contractor's employees unless the owner assumed direct responsibility for the method of work performed (Lombardi v Stout, 178 A.D.2d 208, 212 [1st Dept 1991]).

  9. Dasilva v. El-Ad 250 W. LLC

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 32760 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    With regards to El-Ad and New Line's argument that they also did not have notice of the subject condition, plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that the object on which plaintiff tripped was an inherently dangerous condition at the premises and was not instead produced as a result of the manner of the work (see Cappabianca v Skanska USA Bldg. Inc., 99 A.D.3d 139, 145 [1st Dept 2012] (holding "the water would not have been present but for the manner and means of plaintiff's injury-producing work"); McCormick v 257 W. Genesee, LLC, 78 A.D.3d 1581, 1582 [4th Dept 2010] (holding that a protruding pin stored at a site which caused plaintiff to fall was not a defect in the property, but was created by the manner in which plaintiff performed the work); Lombardi v Stout, 178 A.D.2d 208, 211 [1st Dept 1991] (holding that accident was caused not due to an inherently dangerous condition, but a defect in the tools and method or negligent acts of the subcontractor)).

  10. Castro v. Merch. Mart Props., Inc.

    2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 31308 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2017)

    Here, it is alleged that the accident was caused due to both the faulty installation of the tent's vinyl roof, as well as plaintiff's decision to walk across the roof to get to the other side, rather then use a ladder and walk around to the other side. Therefore, plaintiff was injured, not because of any inherently dangerous condition of the property itself, but rather, because of "'a defect in the subcontractor's own plant, tools and methods, or through negligent acts of the subcontractor occurring as a detail of the work'" (Lombardi v Stout, 178 AD2d 208, 210 [1st Dept 1991], affd as mod 80 NY2d 290 [1992], quoting Persichilli v Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 16 NY2d 136, 145 [1965]; Dalanna v City of New York, 308 AD2d 400, 400 [1st Dept 2003] [Court determined that the protruding bolt in the concrete slab that the plaintiff tripped on was not a defect inherent in the property, but instead, it was the result of the manner in which the plaintiff's employer performed its work]).