| Perrino v Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01016 [48 AD3d 229] |
| February 5, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Anthony Perrino, Respondent, v Entergy Nuclear IndianPoint 3, LLC, et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco, New York City (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered May 22, 2007,which, to the extent appealed from, denied so much of defendants' motion as sought summaryjudgment dismissing the claim based on Labor Law § 200, unanimously affirmed, withoutcosts.
Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty imposed upon an owner orgeneral contractor to provide construction workers with a safe work site (Comes v New YorkState Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876, 877 [1993]). "An implicit precondition to this duty. . . is that the party charged with that responsibility have the authority to control theactivity bringing about the injury to enable it to avoid or correct an unsafe condition" (Russinv Louis N. Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311, 317 [1981]).
The record here was replete with evidence indicating that defendants played a significant rolein designating the locations where plaintiff could lay down equipment from the crane heoperated, oversaw the cordoning off of dangerous areas with yellow caution tape, and employedcoordinators to regularly walk the job site to inspect for safety issues and to take correctivemeasures. Since plaintiff was injured by tripping over a valve he alleged was not properlycordoned off, there is at least a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants had "the authority tocontrol the activity bringing about the injury."
In light of the frequent inspection of the work site by defendants' employees during eachshift, there is also a triable issue of fact as to defendants' notice of the dangerous condition.Concur—Tom, J.P., Saxe, Gonzalez, Buckley and Catterson, JJ. [See 2007 NYSlip Op 31258(U).]