Skip to content

Case Study

Michael Rubin Successfully Argues Individually Named Defendant Not Liable Under Labor Law

September 12, 2012
Michael Rubin

In this New York Labor Law action, the plaintiff sued various defendants, asserting claims in negligence and pursuant to Labor Law sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The plaintiff moved for a default judgment against, among others, the sole member of the entity that owned and operated the restaurant that had contracted for the construction work at the subject premises. 

Representing the individually named defendant (the sole member of the entity that owned and operated the restaurant), Goldberg Segalla attorney Michael Rubin successfully argued that the defendant had a reasonable excuse for not responding to the complaint earlier and, in addition, the court should grant the individually named defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims against the defendant.  In support of the motion for summary judgment, it was argued that the individually named defendant could not be considered an “owner” or “contractor” under Labor Law sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6) and therefore no liability could be imposed against the defendant. 

In addition, although the case was in the pre-discovery phase, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s negligence claim against the individually named defendant, resulting in the dismissal of all claims.