LoBasso v. NYNEX

245 A.D.2d 273, 665 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12130
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 1, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 273 (LoBasso v. NYNEX) 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
LoBasso v. NYNEX, 245 A.D.2d 273, 665 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12130 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., based upon, inter alia, violations of Labor Law § 240 (1), the defendant Monarch Construction Corp. appeals, as limited by its brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated September 5, 1996, which, inter alia, denied its cross motion for partial summary judgment on its claims for common-law indemnification asserted against the third-party defendant Powerhouse Sheet Metal Company, Inc., and the defendant NYNEX separately appeals from so much of the same order as denied that branch of its cross motion which was for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on its claim for common-law indemnification against Powerhouse Sheet Metal Company, Inc.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

An owner or general contractor held vicariously liable under Labor Law § 240 is entitled to full common-law indemnification from an actively negligent subcontractor provided that the owner or general contractor did not direct, control, or supervise the subcontractor’s work (see generally, Dawson v Pavarini Constr. Co., 228 AD2d 466).

Here, however, questions of fact exist as to the defendants NYNEX’s and Monarch Construction Corp.’s (hereinafter Monarch) control and/or supervision over safety measures employed by the third-party defendant Powerhouse Sheet Metal Company, Inc. (cf., Fusaro v Sunnydale Estates, 221 AD2d 414; McNair v Morris Ave. Assocs., 203 AD2d 433, 435; Richardson v Matarese, 206 AD2d 354).

The remaining contentions by Monarch, are improperly raised for the first time on appeal or are without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Martin v. Paisner
253 A.D.2d 796 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
245 A.D.2d 273, 665 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lobasso-v-nynex-nyappdiv-1997.