based on plaintiff’s fall from a ladder (non-enumerated activity.) But that mutt 200 claim lives on and, like the country song goes, the girls always get better looking at closin’ time.
While defendants had no authority to supervise plaintiff’s work, that’s only half the Labor Law 200 rubric. The other is where, as here, plaintiff’s claims were based on the dangerous condition of the premises themselves, “specifically the structural design, construction, and condition of a portion of the floor.” Under the lease, defendants were required to repair structural damages to the premises and had the right to re-enter to do just that. Unless defendants can show that they didn’t create the structural damage that contributed to plaintiff’s fall, or didn’t have notice of the condition, they can’t very well expect summary judgment on the claim.
So, what have we learned? Not much (we hope.) But, if nothing else, it’s that there is sometimes a reason for the boilerplate we indulge in every day. Each of those Labor Law provisions that we intone, promising easy money and guaranteed riches, can abandon us as quickly as the gambler’s lucky streak. If we’ve done our work, however, there might remain a cause of action that, with a fair modicum of effort, can still save the day.