Boyd v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Boyd v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.

247 A.D.2d 864, 668 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1172

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 4, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 864 (Boyd v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boyd v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 247 A.D.2d 864, 668 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1172 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, defendant’s motion granted in part, cross motion and third-party defendant’s motion granted and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of third-party defendant and cross motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action. The record establishes that defendant did not direct, control or supervise the work being performed by plaintiff when he was injured (see, Russin v Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311, 317; Adamczyk v Hillview Estates Dev. Corp., 226 AD2d 1049, 1050; cf., Mazzu v Benderson Dev. Co., 224 AD2d 1009, 1011-1012).

The court further erred in denying that portion of defendant’s motion for summary judgment seeking contractual indemnification from third-party defendant, including the costs incurred by defendant in the defense of the action brought by plaintiff. The contract between defendant and third-party defendant provided that “[third-party defendant] shall indemnify and save harmless * * * [defendant] * * * from and against any loss or liability for or on account of any injury * * * or damages received or sustained by [third-party defendant] or any of its subcontractors or any employee, agent or invitee of [third-party defendant]”. In view of the broad language of the indemnification provision, defendant is entitled to the costs and counsel fees it reasonably incurred in defense of the action brought by plaintiff (see, Lavorato v Bethlehem Steel Corp., 91 AD2d 1184, 1184-1185; DiPerna v American Broadcasting Cos., 200 AD2d 267). We remit the matter to Supreme Court to [865]*865determine that amount. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J. — Summary Judgment.)

Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, defendant’s motion granted in part, cross motion and third-party defendant’s motion granted and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of third-party defendant and cross motion of defendant for summary judgment dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action. The record establishes that defendant did not direct, control or supervise the work being performed by plaintiff when he was injured (see, Russin v Picciano & Son, 54 NY2d 311, 317; Adamczyk v Hillview Estates Dev. Corp., 226 AD2d 1049, 1050; cf., Mazzu v Benderson Dev. Co., 224 AD2d 1009, 1011-1012).

The court further erred in denying that portion of defendant’s motion for summary judgment seeking contractual indemnification from third-party defendant, including the costs incurred by defendant in the defense of the action brought by plaintiff. The contract between defendant and third-party defendant provided that “[third-party defendant] shall indemnify and save harmless * * * [defendant] * * * from and against any loss or liability for or on account of any injury * * * or damages received or sustained by [third-party defendant] or any of its subcontractors or any employee, agent or invitee of [third-party defendant]”. In view of the broad language of the indemnification provision, defendant is entitled to the costs and counsel fees it reasonably incurred in defense of the action brought by plaintiff (see, Lavorato v Bethlehem Steel Corp., 91 AD2d 1184, 1184-1185; DiPerna v American Broadcasting Cos., 200 AD2d 267). We remit the matter to Supreme Court to [865]*865determine that amount. (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, Jr., J. — Summary Judgment.)

Present — Denman, P. J., Lawton, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 864, 668 N.Y.S.2d 817, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyd-v-bethlehem-steel-corp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack