Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Senior Counsel Rachel R. Gruenberg and Associate Andrew J. O’Connor secured a significant legal victory in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, obtaining summary judgment on behalf of GRSM’s client, a site safety consultant company, resulting in the dismissal of all claims in a multi-party labor law action.
The action arose from a construction project in the Bronx where the plaintiff alleged he was injured after being struck by a falling object at the job site. The plaintiff asserted claims under New York Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) and common-law negligence arising from the incident against GRSM’s client. During the course of the litigation, the owner and general contractor also brought a third-party action for contractual and common-law claims seeking indemnification, contribution, and other relief, contending that GRSM’s client bore responsibility for site safety at the construction site.
GRSM moved for summary judgment, focusing on the contractual framework governing the company’s engagement in the project. The motion established that the site safety company had been retained to provide site safety services in a strictly advisory capacity, and that the company did not assume responsibility for supervising construction work, directing subcontractors, or controlling the means and methods of the work. The GRSM team further argued that their client had no authority to stop work or enforce safety practices, and that responsibility for implementing and enforcing safety measures remained with the general contractor. The motion also addressed the co-defendants’ reliance on a contractual rider in an attempt to shift liability to GRSM’s client. The GRSM team argued that the governing agreement defining the company’s role controlled the allocation of responsibilities at the project and could not be expanded through a separate rider or through testimony suggesting it exercised broader authority at the site.
In its decision, the court relied on this contractual allocation of responsibility in resolving the claims against GRSM’s client. The court also rejected the co-defendants’ attempt to rely on deposition testimony to expand the company’s responsibilities beyond the contract, holding that the contract itself controlled the allocation of authority at the project. Because the agreement reserved responsibility for implementing and enforcing safety measures to the general contractor, the court concluded that GRSM’s client could not be considered a statutory agent under the labor law, could not be held responsible for the alleged accident, and further rejected the owner and general contractor’s attempt to shift liability through contractual indemnification and related claims.
The court therefore granted GRSM’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s action and all third-party claims and cross-claims against GRSM’s client. This result underscores the GRSM Westchester team’s depth of experience defending complex New York Labor Law matters and addressing the sophisticated contractual issues that frequently arise between commercial parties in high-stakes litigation.