New York businesses should review a recent decision by the Court of Appeals expanding the scope of liability under New York Labor Law section 240(1). In Sanatass v. Consolidated Investing Company, Inc., 2008 WL 1817261 (N.Y. 2008), a divided court held that a property owner is liable for a Labor Law section 240(1) violation even when a tenant of the building contracted for the work without the owner’s knowledge.
Consolidated owned a commercial building in Manhattan, and C2 Media subleased the 11th floor of the building. Under the lease, C2 Media was required to get the landlord’s written consent for any repairs and renovations. In January of 2000, C2 Media hired Sanatass to install a commercial air conditioning unit on their floor. C2 Media did not notify Consolidated about the work. While he was installing the air conditioning unit, one of the manual lifts fails causing the unit to drop, nearly crushing Sanatass.
Sanatass then sued Consolidated alleging violations of Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6). Consolidated successfully moved for summary judgment, and the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that Consolidated could not be held liable because the installation was performed without its consent and in violation of the lease.
The Court of Appeals disagreed. The court first determined that the installation of an air conditioner constituted an “alteration” within the scope of section 240(1), and that Sanatass sustained injuries “as a result of an elevation-related hazard – a falling object.” The Court then rejected Consolidated’s contention that it could not be held liable given that C2 Media breached the lease by not obtaining Consolidated’s permission before hiring a contractor to perform the alterations. Recognizing that the purpose of section 240(1) was to protect workers, the Court noted that section 240(1) imposes strict liability that “is nondelegable and that an owner is liable for a violation of the section even though the job was performed by an independent contractor over which it exercised no supervision or control.” For instance, out-of-possession owners have been held liable under section 240(1).
The Court concluded that Consolidated similarly could not avoid liability by contending that it was not an “owner” for purposes of the statute by relying on its lack of knowledge of Sanatass’ work. In sum, the Court refused to create “a lack-of-notice exception to owner liability.” Instead, the court held that “the owner’s lack of notice or control over the work is not conclusive – this is precisely what is meant by absolute or strict liability in this context.” In reaching this conclusion, the Court distinguished its decision in Abbatiello v. Lancaster Studio Assoc., 3 N.Y.3d 46 (2004). In Abbatiello, a cable repair technician was injured while accessing a junction box on the exterior of a building. The court in Abbatiello refused hold the owner liable because the plaintiff was only on the property by virtue of the Public Service Law to repair the cable system, meaning there was no nexus between the owner and the plaintiff. In contrast, Sanatass was employed by C2 Media to perform work in Consolidated’s building, and “as between the owner and the worker, section 240(1) clearly places the burden on the owner should a violation of the statute proximately cause injury.” In the wake of Sanatass, an owner cannot insulate itself from liability under Labor Law 240(1) by requiring its tenants to give notice of any repairs or alterations.
Full Opinion Text: http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/decisions/apr08/60opn08.pdf