Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996

Lillis v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided April 22, 1996

226 A.D.2d 592; 641 N.Y.S.2d 358; 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4374

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Moldovan v. Prestige Construction NY, LLC (District Court, E.D. New York 2025)
Reilly v. Newireen Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Sullivan v. Main Line Electric Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Loiacono v. Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Martin v. Paisner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Panetta v. Paramount Communications, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Smith v. County of Nassau (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
American Motorists Insurance v. A-1 Security Systems (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
Bermel v. Board of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.), dated January 4, 1995, as granted the cross motion by the defendant third-party plaintiff Cofire Paving Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) causes of action in the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

*593It is well settled that where an alleged defect or dangerous condition arises from a subcontractor’s own methods in performing the work, and the general contractor exercises no supervisory control over the operation, no liability attaches to the general contractor either under the common law or under Labor Law § 200 (see, Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., 82 NY2d 876, 877; Lombardi v Stout, 80 NY2d 290, 295). In the case at bar, there was no evidence that the defendant third-party plaintiff Cofire Paving Corp. (hereinafter Cofire) exercised any supervisory control or had any input into how the work at the project site was to be performed. Accordingly, the cause of action asserted under Labor Law § 200 was properly dismissed (see, Lombardi v Stout, supra, at 295; Rojas v County of Nassau, 210 AD2d 390; D’Avila v City of New York, 205 AD2d 729).

Additionally, the allegations of the complaint and the plaintiff’s bill of particulars made a generalized claim of common-law negligence and referred solely to Cofire’s alleged failure to comply with general safety standards. The plaintiff did not allege that Cofire failed to comply with any concrete specifications mandated under the Industrial Code (see, 12 NYCRR part 23). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the claims asserted under Labor Law § 241 (6) (see, Comes v New York State Elec. & Gas Corp., supra, at 878; Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 503-505; Rojas v County of Nassau, supra; D'Avila v City of New York, supra). Balletta, J. P., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.