Grayson v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grayson v. City of New York

241 A.D.2d 338, 659 N.Y.S.2d 287

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

DecidedJuly 3, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 241 A.D.2d 338 (Grayson v. City of New York) 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

Grayson v. City of New York, 241 A.D.2d 338, 659 N.Y.S.2d 287 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered July 16, 1996, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and denied cross motions for summary judgment by third-party plaintiff construction manager and defendant-respondent-appellant prime contractor on their causes of action for indemnification against third-party defendant subcontractor, plaintiff’s employer, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, to grant plaintiffs’ motion and the construction manager’s and prime contractor’s cross motions.

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim should have been granted on the basis of Owen Grayson’s uncontradicted deposition testimony that he fell off a ladder while working with a drill when the ladder moved as a result of the drill vibrations, and that the ladder did not have proper braces to prevent such movement (see, Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 NY2d 555, 560-562; MacNair v Salamon, 199 AD2d 170). Further, since there is no evidence that either the construction manager or the prime contractor controlled plaintiff’s work, their cross motions for indemnification against plaintiff’s employer should have been granted (see, Mangano v American Stock Exch., 234 AD2d 198). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Tom, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered July 16, 1996, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the issue of Labor Law § 240 (1) liability and denied cross motions for summary judgment by third-party plaintiff construction manager and defendant-respondent-appellant prime contractor on their causes of action for indemnification against third-party defendant subcontractor, plaintiff’s employer, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, to grant plaintiffs’ motion and the construction manager’s and prime contractor’s cross motions.

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim should have been granted on the basis of Owen Grayson’s uncontradicted deposition testimony that he fell off a ladder while working with a drill when the ladder moved as a result of the drill vibrations, and that the ladder did not have proper braces to prevent such movement (see, Gordon v Eastern Ry. Supply, 82 NY2d 555, 560-562; MacNair v Salamon, 199 AD2d 170). Further, since there is no evidence that either the construction manager or the prime contractor controlled plaintiff’s work, their cross motions for indemnification against plaintiff’s employer should have been granted (see, Mangano v American Stock Exch., 234 AD2d 198). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Tom, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D.2d 338, 659 N.Y.S.2d 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grayson-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack