This page summarizes and comments on a published court decision. It is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its own facts. Unless this page says otherwise, The Eskesen Law Firm did not represent any party in this case.
Bottom line
A company sued by an injured construction worker may argue that it is not a proper defendant under the Labor Law, but whether it acted as the general contractor can depend on what it actually did on the project, not only on what its paperwork says. Here, the First Department held that the owner’s testimony, a sign at the site naming the builder as general contractor, and Department of Buildings records raised a question of fact, so the builder stays in the case.
The case
- Court
- Appellate Division, First Department
- Decided
- October 22, 2026
- Case
- Torres v Tinton Realty Group LLC
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 06233
- Official text
- Read the decision on the New York courts’ official reporter site
The facts
The plaintiff was using stilts to apply compound to the walls and ceiling of a bathroom on the sixth floor of a new building under construction when his stilts slipped on plastic floor covering, and he fell backwards and sustained multiple injuries. Tinton Realty Group LLC owned the project and had retained Supreme Builders, Corp. to excavate and install the building’s foundation and superstructure. Supreme moved for summary judgment dismissing the action against it on the ground that it was not a proper Labor Law defendant, along with all cross-claims against it. It relied on a cost sheet, on its letterhead and dated September 24, 2019, which Tinton had produced in discovery as an agreement between the two. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted an unopposed part of the motion, dismissing his Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Supreme, denied the rest, and Supreme appealed.
The holding
The First Department unanimously modified the order only to grant Supreme summary judgment dismissing Tinton’s cross-claims against it for common-law indemnification and contribution, and otherwise affirmed. “The cost sheet does not state that Supreme assumed general contractor responsibilities for the construction project” (2026 NY Slip Op 06233, *1). But “plaintiff and Tinton raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Supreme was the general contractor by submitting the deposition testimony of Tinton’s principal, who testified that Supreme coordinated the trade contractors and hired a site safety contractor” (id.). The plaintiff also submitted “a photograph of the project’s streetside construction-disclosure signage that identified Supreme as the general contractor” (id.), and Department of Buildings (DOB) records showing that Supreme obtained the permits and resolved DOB-issued work safety violations. Because those records were not the only evidence in opposition, the motion court could consider them, and it “had discretion to consider DOB records obtained from the DOB website, even though they were uncertified” (id.).
What changed
Nothing new: this applies settled law, including the court’s earlier decisions in Kosovrasti v Epic [217] LLC (96 AD3d 695) and Gibson v U’SAgain Holdings, LLC (167 AD3d 536).
What it means
- A contractor’s own paperwork is not the last word on its role. Who coordinated the trades, who hired the site safety contractor, who obtained the permits, and what the sign at the site said may all matter.
- Printouts from the DOB website, though uncertified, could be considered here, in part because they were not the only evidence offered against the motion.
- The plaintiff’s remaining claims against Supreme go forward; his Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against it had already been dismissed, without opposition. The rest of the decision concerns indemnification and insurance claims among the companies.
Our view
Commentary by Frank N. Eskesen. This section is opinion.
In a construction accident, the company the injured worker knows best is his own employer, but workers’ compensation typically prevents a worker from suing the employer directly (Workers’ Compensation Law § 11). The worker’s Labor Law claims run instead against “[a]ll contractors and owners and their agents,” with an exception for some owners of one- and two-family homes (Labor Law § 240[1]; see also § 241). That is why it matters which company owned the property and which company was running the job as general contractor, and those are facts the worker may not know. Here, some of the most useful proof came from the street: a photograph of the sign at the site, and public records anyone can look up on the DOB website. The sign named Supreme as general contractor, and a cost sheet that was silent on the point did not settle the question before trial. Two practical points. 1. If you are hurt on a construction site, and you can do so safely, photograph the signs posted at the site, especially any that name the owner or contractors, and get legal advice promptly; signs come down when the job ends. 2. For lawyers, pull the DOB permit and violation records early, and do not rely on uncertified printouts alone; the court could consider them here, in part because they were not the only evidence offered against the motion. The name on the sign can be the start of the answer.
Topics
Court: First Department. Year: 2026. Statutes: Labor Law § 200. Result: modified.
Reviewed by Frank N. Eskesen, admitted in New York since 2000. Decided October 22, 2026. Posted October 26, 2026.
Questions about your own accident?
Call us for a free consultation. Calls answered live 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.