LIEB BLOG

Legal Analysts

Showing posts with label general contractor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label general contractor. Show all posts

Friday, March 25, 2022

Construction Workers' Wage & Hour Claims are about to Blow-Up

On March 18, 2022, a new NYS law provides that a General Contractor will now have 10 business days from receipt of notice of unpaid wages by a subcontractor's employee to pay such subcontractor's employee earned wages, benefits, and/or wage supplements earned, or such General Contractors can be sued for the wages for the previous 3 years. 


General Contractors must implement hour tracking for their subcontractors' employees immediately because they are liable for time and a half for overtime. 


Plus, General Contractors should act swiftly if they receive the new statutory 10 business day notice because if the subcontractors' employee sues, they will be liable for statutory penalties (liquidated damages) plus attorneys' fees in a court case.







Tuesday, June 29, 2021

New Law All NY Contractors with Government Contracts Should Know About To Get Paid Faster

Public work projects involving New York State entities are lengthy, extensive, chaotic, and often result in a variety of disputes based on timeframe, requisition for payments, and when payments are due.


Consequently, NY amended a previous law that changes the definition of how contractors get paid to make it an easier and quicker process. 

Substantial completion is now defined as the completion of "work or major portions thereof as contemplated by the terms of the contract.

Based on this new definition, it's time for contractors to revise the terms of the government contracts with this new language. 


For reference, the new NYS law amends State Finance Law §139-f and General Municipal Law §106-b, which require contractors working on a public work project to submit requisitions for payment of completed work that is "substantially completed" to a public owner. The amendments clarify the meaning of  "substantial completion" in public work projects.  


Previously, Senate Bills S.7664 and and A.9117 amended section 139-f of the state finance law to define "substantially completed" work on a public work project as "the state in the progress of a project when the work required by the contract" is completed. 


The new law supersedes both Senate Bills S.7664 and A.9117 with its new definition of "substantial completion.


Based on this narrow and concise definition of "substantial completion,", this amendment will undoubtedly create far less chaos, confusion, and turmoil during the course of an ongoing public works project. 




Tuesday, February 23, 2021

Home Construction Injuries - How to Get Sued and Lose

Generally, homeowners are exempt from liability for construction-related injuries that happen in their home. 


However, homeowners become liable if they direct or control the method and manner of work. 


What does that rule mean to you?


The Appellate Courts, in O'Mara v. Ranalli, just taught us that it is a jury question where there is evidence that the homeowner did the following acts:

  • Supplied the ladders used by the contractors;
  • Being on site and giving direction nearly every day; and 
  • Deciding not to permit the installation of stairs from the basement to the first floor in the face of the contractor insisting that it was needed for safer and easier access to the first floor.

If you get called to jury duty on this one, how would you decide? Did the homeowner direct or control the method and manner of work? Should the homeowner be responsible for ensuing injuries?




Monday, February 08, 2021

Construction GCs Should Videotape Their Worksites to Avoid Lawsuits

Typically, when a construction worker gets injured on the job from an elevated fall, it's a slam dunk case against the GC. 


In fact, Labor Law § 240(1) imposes strict or absolute liability on general contractors, owners, and their agents regardless if the injured worker is partially at fault for falls at construction sites. 


The only real defense for the GC is that the injured worker was the sole proximate cause of the accident (called the, "recalcitrant worker" defense). But, how do you prove sole cause when everyone claims different facts? 


We just learned the answer in an appellate division case, Cordova v 653 Eleventh Ave. LLC.


The case was dismissed because "Surveillance footage of plaintiff falling from the ladder demonstrates that" it was solely the injured worker's fault. The ladder didn't move or shake, it was connected to the sidewalk bridge and scaffolding above and tied to the scaffold too. 


Moving forward, GCs should video your construction sites. It can save you a fortune.