Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20100527_0004156.NY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-06-27 16:09:58
Document Index: 657450578

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 241', 'art, 12', '§ 23', '§ 241', '§ 23', '§ 241', '§ 200', '§ 200']

| Coyago v. Mapa Properties
Coyago v. Mapa Properties
YACOMO COYAGO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT-RESPONDENT,v.MAPA PROPERTIES, INC., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
18749/07
A Labor Law § 241(6) claim requires that there be a violation of some specific safety standard (see Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 501-502, 505 [1993]), and plaintiff has invoked, in part, 12 NYCRR § 23-1.25(f). However, even assuming the applicability of this Industrial Code regulation, Labor Law § 241(6) only provides protection "to persons employed in, or lawfully frequenting, all areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed" (see Rizzuto v L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 NY2d 343, 348 [1998]), and it is clear that plaintiff was not, at the time of his injury, engaged in construction or excavation. Regarding demolition, which is defined by 12 NYCRR § 23-1.4(b)(16) as "[t]he work incidental to or associated with the total or partial dismantling or razing of a building or other structure including the removing or dismantling of machinery or other equipment" (see also Baranello v Rudin Mgt. Co., 13 AD3d 245, 245-246 [2004], lv denied 5 NY3d 706 [2005]), the mere act of dismantling a vehicle, whether a boat, a car or otherwise, unrelated to any other project, is not the sort of demolition intended to be covered by Labor Law § 241(6) (see Caban v Maria Estela Houses I Assoc., L.P., 63 AD3d 639, 639-640 [2009]).
As for plaintiff's claim under Labor Law § 200, which "is a codification of the common law duty imposed upon an owner or general contractor to maintain a safe construction site" (Rizzuto at 352), it is "an implicit precondition to this duty . . . that the party to be charged with that obligation 'have the authority to control the activity bringing about the injury to enable it to avoid or correct an unsafe condition'" (id. at 352 [citations omitted]). In the instant matter, there is absolutely no allegation that defendant had the authority to direct, control or manage the activity in which plaintiff was engaged and which caused the injury. Thus, the common law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action should also have been dismissed.