Any claim by the construction manager that it was not a party potentially liable for a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) is unpreserved, since it did not raise such argument either in moving to dismiss at the close of plaintiff's case or in moving for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence, and never requested that the jury be instructed to determine whether it was a "contractor" or "agent" of the owner within the meaning of the statute. Even if this argument...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
