Laurie v. Niagara Candy, Inc.

188 A.D.2d 1075, 592 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14961
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 30, 1992
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 188 A.D.2d 1075 (Laurie v. Niagara Candy, Inc.) 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
Laurie v. Niagara Candy, Inc., 188 A.D.2d 1075, 592 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14961 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The court properly granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment with respect to Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. Plaintiff Lewis P. Laurie (plaintiff), an employee of third-party defendant Friendship Construction, Inc., was injured when he fell from a ladder while engaged in the construction of a building owned by defendant Niagara Candy, Inc. Although plaintiff wore a safety belt with a tie-off line that he was not using, no proof was offered that he was told to use it under the circumstances [1076]*1076in which he fell. Thus, there is no merit to the argument of Friendship and defendant and third-party plaintiff Rigger Construction Co., Inc., the general contractor, that plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker (see, Donovan v City of Buffalo, 185 AD2d 703).

The court properly granted Niagara Candy’s cross motion for summary judgment against Rigger for common-law and contractual indemnification and Rigger’s cross motion for summary judgment against Friendship for common-law indemnification because there was no proof that either Niagara Candy or Rigger directed, supervised or controlled the work in question (see, Schwalm v County of Monroe, 158 AD2d 994; Pietsch v Moog, Inc., 156 AD2d 1019; cf., De Crisci v P&C Food Mkts., 107 AD2d 1029). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Boehm, Fallon and Doerr, JJ.

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

Related

Novak v. BASF Corp.
869 F. Supp. 113 (N.D. New York, 1994)
Allan v. Rochester Institute of Technology
209 A.D.2d 929 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Haystrand v. County of Ontario
207 A.D.2d 978 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Hall v. Cornell University
205 A.D.2d 872 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Murray v. Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority
199 A.D.2d 984 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
188 A.D.2d 1075, 592 N.Y.S.2d 181, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laurie-v-niagara-candy-inc-nyappdiv-1992.