Section 200 codifies the common-law duty of property owners and general contractors to provide a safe workplace. It's the only Labor Law theory where the defense plays on genuinely favorable terrain — because liability depends on either supervisory control over the work or notice of a dangerous condition, and the burden is on the plaintiff to prove one of those two things.
The Court of Appeals established in Comes v. New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. (82 N.Y.2d 876) that § 200 cases fall into two distinct categories, and the defense is different for each:
Track 1 — Manner and method of work. If the injury arose from how the work was performed (worker cut himself with a saw, used a tool incorrectly, operated equipment unsafely), the owner/GC is only liable if they had authority to supervise or control the means and methods of the plaintiff's work. General supervisory authority — setting schedules, coordinating trades, inspecting progress — is not enough. The owner/GC must have controlled how the specific task was performed. Most GCs don't exercise that level of control over subcontractor employees, which means most manner-and-method claims are defensible on summary judgment.
Track 2 — Dangerous condition on the premises. If the injury arose from a condition of the worksite (hole in the floor, defective stairway, accumulation of debris), the owner/GC is liable only if they had actual or constructive notice of the condition and a reasonable opportunity to correct it. The defense is the classic notice analysis: when did the condition arise, how long did it exist, did the defendant know about it, and did they have time to fix it? A condition that developed minutes before the accident and was never reported to the owner is not liability. A condition that persisted for weeks with the owner's knowledge is.
⚠ Why This Matters to Adjusters
In a typical three-count Labor Law complaint (§§ 240, 241(6), and 200), the § 200 claim is often the only one where the insured has a realistic chance of total dismissal. If the § 240 and § 241(6) claims survive — which they often do — the § 200 defense becomes critical for two reasons: (1) it establishes the framework for the insured's cross-claims against the subcontractor's employer, and (2) it provides comparative fault evidence that may reduce the eventual § 241(6) verdict even if the court doesn't reach § 200 separately. Never treat the § 200 defense as an afterthought.
In almost every construction accident case, the real question behind the defense is: who ultimately pays? Property owners hire GCs. GCs hire subs. Each contract typically contains indemnification provisions and insurance procurement requirements. When a sub's employee is injured and sues the owner and GC under the Labor Law, the first call is to the sub's carrier to tender the defense as an additional insured.
The tender analysis involves:
Carriers expect defense counsel to identify these tender opportunities in the initial case evaluation — not six months into discovery. We review the subcontract, identify the AI endorsement, and draft the tender letter as part of the initial case workup. If the tender is accepted, the owner's carrier's exposure may be limited to defense costs and a modest contribution. If the tender is disputed, we advise on the coverage arguments and coordinate with coverage counsel.
Free consultations available for most practice areas.
Schedule a Free Consultation Or call 215-826-3133