Santos v. BRE/Swiss, LLC

9 A.D.3d 303, 780 N.Y.S.2d 585, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9783
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 15, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 9 A.D.3d 303 (Santos v. BRE/Swiss, LLC) 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
Santos v. BRE/Swiss, LLC, 9 A.D.3d 303, 780 N.Y.S.2d 585, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

[304]*304Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Janice Bowman, J.), entered September 24, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff s negligence claim against it and for summary judgment on its claim of contractual indemnification against third-party defendant A Best Contracting Co., unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Plaintiff alleges that, while employed, supervised, directed and controlled by third-party defendant A Best, he was injured in a construction accident on defendant’s premises. An I-beam, which had been tied with a knot by employees of A Best and was being lowered to the ground where he was standing, fell on him when the knot came loose.

The motion court properly dismissed plaintiff’s Labor Law § 200 claim upon its finding that defendant established that it neither directed nor supervised plaintiffs work. For the same reason, plaintiffs common-law negligence claim should have been dismissed as well (see De La Rosa v Philip Morris Mgt. Corp., 303 AD2d 190, 191-192 [2003]).

The indemnification agreement between defendant and A Best provides for A Best to indemnify defendant against any loss arising out of A Best’s performance or acts or omissions or the acts or omissions of any of its employees. It does not, by its terms, provide for indemnification against claims arising out of A Best’s work only when A Best was negligent. Thus, the court improperly denied summary judgment to defendant on the ground that issues of fact exist as to whether A Best was negligent and, if so, whether its negligence proximately caused plaintiffs injuries. In the absence of any proof that defendant was negligent, the court should have granted it summary judgment on its claim of contractual indemnification against A Best (see Walsh v Morse Diesel, Inc., 143 AD2d 653, 654-655 [1988]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin and Friedman, JJ.

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

Related

Gamez v. Sandy Clarkson LLC
2023 NY Slip Op 06440 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Rivera v. Columbia Hicks Assoc. LLC
161 N.Y.S.3d 773 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Mancusi v. Avalonbay Communities, Inc.
2021 NY Slip Op 06090 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Karwowski v. 1407 Broadway Real Estate, LLC
2018 NY Slip Op 1422 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Licata v. AB Green Gansevoort, LLC
2018 NY Slip Op 1023 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Chunn v. New York City Housing Authority
55 A.D.3d 437 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Tobio v. Boston Properties, Inc.
54 A.D.3d 1022 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 A.D.3d 303, 780 N.Y.S.2d 585, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santos-v-breswiss-llc-nyappdiv-2004.