Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Timothy R. Capowski and John F. Watkins Timothy R. Capowski and John F. Watkins

It is well past time to remedy the split between the Appellate Division departments regarding Labor Law §200. In the Court of Appeals and three Appellate Division Departments, a plaintiff wishing to impose Labor Law §200 liability on an owner or general contractor (GC) in a “means and methods” case must establish that the owner or GC actually exercised control over the means and methods of the work. But since Ortega v. Puccia in the Second Department (57 A.D.3d 54, 60 (2d Dept. 2008)), an owner or GC may be held liable if it had authority to control the means and methods of the work. This inconsistency has even been noted in the Pattern Jury Instructions:

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Dig Deeper


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.