Albanese v. City of New York, 5 N.Y.3d 221 (2005)
A municipality is not considered an ‘owner’ subject to absolute liability under New York Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 when the State is actively conducting a construction project on an arterial highway, and the city’s involvement is limited to regulatory oversight through work permits.
Summary
Carlo Albanese, a carpenter, was injured when his scaffold was struck by a truck while working on a state-initiated highway project within New York City. Albanese sued the City, among others, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. The New York Court of Appeals held that the City was not an ‘owner’ within the meaning of the Labor Law because the State was actively in charge of the project, and the City’s role was primarily regulatory, issuing work permits. The court distinguished this case from previous rulings where the City had assumed a more direct role in the construction or maintenance of the highway.
Facts
The State of New York contracted for a comprehensive resurfacing and rehabilitation project on the Cross Bronx-Bruckner Interchange. The City of New York issued work permits to the State, granting authority to work on the expressway, subject to certain stipulations. Carlo Albanese was injured when a tractor-trailer struck the scaffold he was working on as part of the state project. The plaintiff alleged that the scaffolding was too low. The City did not participate in the selection of contractors, negotiate contracts, or perform any of the actual work.
Procedural History
Albanese and his wife sued the City of New York, among other parties, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241, and common-law negligence. Supreme Court denied the City’s motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court decision, holding that the City was an owner under the Labor Law. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal from the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the City of New York was an ‘owner’ within the meaning of Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 for a construction project on an arterial highway when the State of New York initiated and managed the project, and the City’s involvement was limited to issuing work permits and exercising regulatory oversight.
Holding
No, because the State was actively in charge of the project, and the City’s role was largely confined to regulatory responsibilities arising from its work permits. The City’s limited involvement was insufficient to subject it to absolute liability under the Labor Law.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals distinguished this case from Nowlin v. City of New York, where the City was held liable for an accident on an arterial highway. In Nowlin, the State had completed construction and transferred jurisdiction to the City, which had planned and placed the negligent signage. Here, state construction was ongoing at the time of the accident, and the City exercised no comparable function with respect to the scaffolding. The court emphasized the importance of determining whether the City functioned as an owner in a practical sense. Citing Highway Law Article XII-B, the court acknowledged the shared responsibility between the state and city regarding arterial highways, but clarified that during state-initiated construction, the state maintains primary control. The court stated, “That limited involvement cannot subject the City to absolute liability under the Labor Law for an injury allegedly resulting from the height of a scaffold placed by state contractors.” The court reasoned that imposing liability on the City based solely on its regulatory role would expand the scope of ‘owner’ liability beyond what the Labor Law intended, particularly when the State maintains direct control over the construction work. The Court focused on the practical control over the work site, finding that the State possessed and exercised that control in this instance. The Court of Appeals thereby reinforced the principle that liability under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 should be predicated on actual, substantive involvement in the construction project, not merely on a municipality’s regulatory authority.