Franciosa v. 145 South Fifth Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Franciosa v. 145 South Fifth Corp.

256 A.D.2d 1, 680 N.Y.S.2d 512, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12779

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 1 (Franciosa v. 145 South Fifth 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

Franciosa v. 145 South Fifth Corp., 256 A.D.2d 1, 680 N.Y.S.2d 512, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12779 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Friedman, J.), entered January 26, 1998, which denied the motion of defendants and third-party plaintiffs, 145 South Fifth Corp. and Ecker Brothers, Inc. (hereinafter defendants), for summary judgment on the issue of common-law indemnity against third-party defendant Troland, Inc. (hereinafter Troland), and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment against defendants pursuant to Labor Law § 240, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motions granted, and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings.

The motion court erred in denying plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment on their cause of action pursuant to section 240 (1) of the Labor Law. Plaintiffs established that the injury was the direct result of a gravity-related accident in which an unsecured metal beam fell onto a scaffold that was inadequate to protect plaintiff from harm (Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494; Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509; Litizia v Woodner Co., 150 AD2d 274).

Likewise, the IAS Court erred in denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment against Troland on their cause of action for common-law indemnity. Defendants did not exercise any control or supervision over the subject construction. It is undisputed that employees of Troland removed bricks that had held the metal beam in place and then failed to secure the steel in any manner before allowing plaintiff to commence work. Accordingly, defendants are entitled to common-law indemnity from Troland (Rodriguez v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 234 AD2d 156). Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Nardelli and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Friedman, J.), entered January 26, 1998, which denied the motion of defendants and third-party plaintiffs, 145 South Fifth Corp. and Ecker Brothers, Inc. (hereinafter defendants), for summary judgment on the issue of common-law indemnity against third-party defendant Troland, Inc. (hereinafter Troland), and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment against defendants pursuant to Labor Law § 240, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motions granted, and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings.

The motion court erred in denying plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment on their cause of action pursuant to section 240 (1) of the Labor Law. Plaintiffs established that the injury was the direct result of a gravity-related accident in which an unsecured metal beam fell onto a scaffold that was inadequate to protect plaintiff from harm (Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494; Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509; Litizia v Woodner Co., 150 AD2d 274).

Likewise, the IAS Court erred in denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment against Troland on their cause of action for common-law indemnity. Defendants did not exercise any control or supervision over the subject construction. It is undisputed that employees of Troland removed bricks that had held the metal beam in place and then failed to secure the steel in any manner before allowing plaintiff to commence work. Accordingly, defendants are entitled to common-law indemnity from Troland (Rodriguez v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 234 AD2d 156). Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Nardelli and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 1, 680 N.Y.S.2d 512, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franciosa-v-145-south-fifth-corp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack