In a recent ruling by the New York Supreme Court, the tenant of a property, Cobblestone Restaurant, was determined not to be liable for the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 and Labor Law § 241 claims. Cobblestone, a tenant occupying a property owned by Encore and operating as a restaurant, successfully moved to dismiss the claims on the grounds of not being the contractor or owner of the property. (JD Supra)
The case is otherwise known as Campbell v. Cobblestone Rest. of Geneva, LLC, 78 Misc. 3d 1216(A), 184 N.Y.S. 3d 577. This case arose when an individual working for a subcontractor suffered a fall while at the restaurant’s premises.
Typically, claims under New York’s Labor Law § 240, also known as the Scaffold Law, and Labor Law § 241, which focuses on construction, demolition, and excavation work, are leveled at the property owner or the general contractor. However, in this case, the plaintiff attempted to hold Cobblestone liable as a tenant of the property.
The primary defense put forth by Cobblestone was that they did not exercise any control over the plaintiff’s work. Their position was that, as mere tenants, their control over the worksite — the restaurant — was limited. Therefore, they should not bear responsibility for the plaintiff’s accident.
The court sided with Cobblestone, reinforcing the firm legal principles underlying New York’s labor laws. It stated explicitly that only those who exercise actual control over the worksite can be held liable for accidents or injuries. As tenants, Cobblestone did not meet this requirement and were therefore cleared of the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 and Labor Law § 241 claims.
This case is a pertinent reminder to legal professionals working in corporations and law firms of the importance of understanding the scope and limitations of responsibility under New York’s labor laws. (JD Supra)