| Schultz v Hi-Tech Constr. & Mgt. Servs., Inc. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00242 [69 AD3d 701] |
| January 12, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Lawrence Schultz, Respondent, v Hi-Tech Construction &Management Services, Inc., et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Dinkes & Schwitzer, P.C., New York, N.Y. (William A. Prinsell and Naomi Skura ofcounsel), for respondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited bytheir brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), datedMarch 19, 2009, as denied that branch of their motion which was, in effect, for summaryjudgment dismissing the causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 200 andcommon-law negligence.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appeal from, with costs.
Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty of landowners and generalcontractors to provide workers with a reasonably safe place to work (see Ross vCurtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 501-502 [1993]; Lombardi v Stout,80 NY2d 290, 294 [1992]; Chowdhury v Rodriguez, 57 AD3d 121, 127-128 [2008])."Liability under the statute is therefore governed by common-law negligence principles"(Chowdhury v Rodriguez, 57 AD3d at 128). "Ladders fall within the scope of theprotection afforded by the statute" (Chowdhury v Rodriguez, 57 AD3d at 128). Casesinvolving Labor Law § 200 generally fall into two disjunctive categories: those whereworkers were injured as a result of dangerous or defective conditions at a work site and thoseinvolving the manner in which the work was performed (see Chowdhury v Rodriguez, 57AD3d at 127-128; Ortega v Puccia,57 AD3d 54, 61 [2008]).
Where, as here, a plaintiff's injuries stem not from the manner in which the work wasperformed, but, rather, from an allegedly dangerous condition on the premises, a generalcontractor may be liable in common-law negligence and under Labor Law § 200 if it hascontrol over the work site and actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition (see Van Salisbury v Elliott-Lewis, 55AD3d 725, 726 [2008]; Keating vNanuet Bd. of Educ., 40 AD3d 706, 708 [2007]; Bridges v Wyandanch Community Dev. Corp., 66 AD3d 938[2009]). Here, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants' motion whichwas, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action alleging a violation ofLabor Law § 200 and common-law negligence because the defendants failed todemonstrate the absence of a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, [*2]49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). In particular, triable issues of fact existas to whether a dangerous condition caused the ladder to slip and the plaintiff to fall and sustainan injury and, if so, whether the defendants had control over the work site and actual orconstructive notice of the dangerous condition (see Artoglou v Gene Scappy Realty Corp., 57 AD3d 460, 462-463[2008]; Van Salisbury v Elliott-Lewis,55 AD3d 725 [2008]; Wein vAmato Props., LLC, 30 AD3d 506, 507-508 [2006]; Cruz v Kowal Indus., 267AD2d 271, 272 [1999]). Santucci, J.P., Balkin, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.