"Actual Or Constructive Notice" Standard Applied Instead Of "Means And Methods" Standard In Denying Owner’s Motion For Summary Judgment On Labor Law §200 Claim
October, 2010
In Slikas v. Cyclone Realty, LLC, WL 3700179 (2d Dep't 2010), Plaintiff alleged that she sustained personal injuries after she tripped over a crowbar left in an office doorway by a painting contractor. Plaintiff alleged the owner of the Premises where the incident took place, Cyclone Realty, LLC ("Cyclone") was liable, in part, under Labor Law §200.
Cyclone filed a motion for summary judgment and argued that it was not liable under Labor Law §200 because it did not control the means and methods of the painters' work that resulted in the mislaid crowbar. In opposition to Cyclone's motion and appeal, Plaintiff argued that the "means and methods" standard is just one standard under which liability may be imposed against an owner under Labor Law §200, and that liability may also be imposed if the owner caused or created the dangerous condition, or had actual or constructive notice of it. Id. at 1. The trial court denied the motion and held that there was an issue of fact as to whether Cyclone exercised control over the painters "means and methods." Id. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the decision, however it, did so "for reasons other than those identified by the Supreme Court." Id.
Although agreeing with the result reached by the trial court, the Appellate Court held that the applicable legal standard was not whether the owner exercised control over the means and methods of the painters' work, but whether the owner had actual or constructive notice of the mislaid crowbar. In reaching its decision, the Appellate Court relied upon the fact that the accident occurred after the painters ceased their work for the day and were no longer using their tools, including the crowbar. Id. at 2. The Appellate Court explained that "the end of the painter's work day transformed the mislaid crowbar into a premises condition" and although Cyclone did not create the condition, it was required to demonstrate that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the mislaid crowbar in order to prevail on a motion for summary judgment. Id. Because there was no evidence in the record as to how much time elapsed from the time the painters left on the date of the accident to the time of Plaintiff's accident, Cyclone was unable to demonstrate that it lacked constructive notice of the dangerous condition and therefore could not establish its prima-facie entitlement to summary judgment. Id. at 3.
Learning Point
After contractors finish their work, an owner may be liable for a condition created by the contractors which causes an accident, if the owner had actual or constructive notice of the condition. If the accident occurs while the contractors are still working, the owner may be liable if it exercised control over the means and methods of the contractors' activities.
Back to New York CM Report of Recent Decisions (2010v3) 2010 Volume 3 Table of Contents
