Guth v. Mutual of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guth v. Mutual of New York

213 A.D.2d 1066, 624 N.Y.S.2d 76, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3909

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 1066 (Guth v. Mutual 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

Guth v. Mutual of New York, 213 A.D.2d 1066, 624 N.Y.S.2d 76, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion and cross motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred (1) in denying the motion of plaintiff for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability in this Labor Law § 240 (1) action and (2) in denying the cross motion of defendant and third-party plaintiff, Mutual of New York (MONY), for summary judgment against third-party defendant, Allwash of Syracuse, Inc., on the issue of indemnity.

The evidence submitted demonstrates that, while plaintiff was working on a scaffold, he ducked under an exposed pipe, stepped off the scaffold, and fell. Defendant concedes that the "scaffold did not provide proper protection within the requirements of Labor Law section 240” (see, Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 513).

The record establishes that MONY did not have control or supervision over either the work or plaintiff. An owner or contractor is entitled to common-law indemnification from the employer when the liability of the owner or contractor is purely statutory and based solely on its status (Mas v Two Bridges Assocs., 75 NY2d 680; Pietsch v Moog, Inc., 156 AD2d 1019). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Hayes, J.:—Labor Law § 240 [1].) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, 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 and motion and cross motion granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred (1) in denying the motion of plaintiff for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability in this Labor Law § 240 (1) action and (2) in denying the cross motion of defendant and third-party plaintiff, Mutual of New York (MONY), for summary judgment against third-party defendant, Allwash of Syracuse, Inc., on the issue of indemnity.

The evidence submitted demonstrates that, while plaintiff was working on a scaffold, he ducked under an exposed pipe, stepped off the scaffold, and fell. Defendant concedes that the "scaffold did not provide proper protection within the requirements of Labor Law section 240” (see, Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 513).

The record establishes that MONY did not have control or supervision over either the work or plaintiff. An owner or contractor is entitled to common-law indemnification from the employer when the liability of the owner or contractor is purely statutory and based solely on its status (Mas v Two Bridges Assocs., 75 NY2d 680; Pietsch v Moog, Inc., 156 AD2d 1019). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Hayes, J.:—Labor Law § 240 [1].) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 1066, 624 N.Y.S.2d 76, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guth-v-mutual-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack