TILFORD v. SWEET

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff-respondent.

A general contractor that has control of a work site during the progress of a construction or renovation project may properly be held liable based on its having failed to correct a dangerous condition of which it had actual or constructive notice ( see Keating v Nanuet Bd. of Ed., 40 AD3d 706; Kerins v Vassar Coll., 15 AD3d 623; Blysma v County of Saratoga, 296 AD2d 637, 639). Here, there is at the very least an issue of fact as to whether the appellant, while labeled a "construction manager," might be considered the equivalent of a general contractor for the purposes of applying this general rule ( see generally Walls v Turner Constr. Co., 4 NY3d 861; Natoli v City of New York, 32 AD3d 507; Nienajadlo v Infomart N.Y., LLC, 19 AD3d 384; cf. Linkowski v City of New York 33 AD3d 971).