Background
On November 17, 2018, Carnell Vinson was working at a construction site in Brooklyn managed by Toll NY II, LLC — part of the Toll Brothers enterprise — directing concrete delivery trucks. Vinson was employed by RC Structures, Inc. (a subcontractor) to manage deliveries from Ferrara Bros., LLC. He was struck and injured when a Ferrara Bros. concrete truck, driven by employee Jhon F. Franco, reversed without adequate warning.
Vinson initially sued Ferrara Bros. and Franco (eventually settling those claims), and later added the Toll defendants — Toll Bros., Inc., Toll Brothers Real Estate, Inc., and Toll NY II, LLC — as defendants in the main action. The Toll defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence claim, arguing that they neither created a dangerous premises condition nor supervised or controlled the method and manner of the delivery work. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the Toll defendants’ motion. Vinson appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Division reversed, reinstating the common-law negligence claim against the Toll defendants and granting Vinson’s cross-motion to dismiss the Toll defendants’ third-party complaint against the Ferrara Bros. defendants.
Common-law negligence at construction sites falls into two categories: (1) accidents caused by a dangerous or defective premises condition, and (2) accidents caused by the manner and method of the work. When a defendant moves for summary judgment, it must address both categories — or affirmatively establish that the accident fits in only one. Here, the Toll defendants successfully established that the accident arose from the manner and method of work (concrete truck maneuvering), not from a defective premises condition. That shifted the inquiry to the second leg: whether the Toll defendants had the authority to supervise or control the work that caused the injury.
The court found that the Toll defendants’ submissions failed to eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether they exercised supervisory authority over concrete deliveries at the site. A property owner or general contractor that bears responsibility for the manner in which work is performed — or that retained actual control over site operations — can be held liable under common-law negligence for an accident caused by the method of work. Because the Toll defendants did not conclusively establish the absence of supervisory authority, summary judgment was improper regardless of the strength of the plaintiff’s opposition.
Key Takeaways
- A general contractor or project owner seeking summary judgment on a common-law negligence claim must eliminate triable issues of fact on both categories of construction site negligence — premises conditions and method-and-manner — or affirmatively establish that only one category applies and then satisfy that theory’s elements.
- Showing that an accident arose from the method and manner of work shifts the inquiry to supervisory authority; the general contractor must then prove it lacked authority to supervise or control the specific work that caused the injury.
- A plaintiff’s opposition papers are irrelevant if the moving defendant fails to make its prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment — the court must deny the motion regardless.
Why It Matters
This decision is important for New York construction injury practitioners on both sides of the bar. Large residential developers like Toll Brothers who act as the de facto general contractor and property owner on their projects cannot automatically escape common-law negligence liability simply because a subcontractor’s employee drove the truck. If they retain — or appear to retain — supervisory authority over how and where delivery operations occur on the site, they remain potentially liable.
For plaintiffs’ counsel, the decision confirms that the supervisory-authority question is a fact-intensive inquiry that often defeats early summary judgment motions. The key is deposing the general contractor’s site superintendent and project manager to understand what they actually directed, observed, or controlled on the ground — because that record is what will determine whether the developer had the authority to prevent the accident. For defense counsel representing developers, the takeaway is that the summary judgment record must affirmatively establish, with competent evidence, that the developer played no supervisory role over the specific work in progress when the accident occurred.