Taylor v. Lehr Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Taylor v. Lehr Construction Corp.

15 A.D.3d 242, 788 N.Y.S.2d 855, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1476

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 15 A.D.3d 242 (Taylor v. Lehr Construction Corp.) 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

Taylor v. Lehr Construction Corp., 15 A.D.3d 242, 788 N.Y.S.2d 855, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1476 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, J.), entered January 14, 2004, as amended January 22, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied third-party plaintiff Lehr’s cross motion for common-law indemnification against defendant Wood-Pro II Installers and for contractual indemnification against defendant/third-party defendant William Summerville, Inc. and third-party defendant Nastasi & Associates, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The liability assigned to Lehr will not necessarily be vicarious, since it undertook responsibility for safety oversight at the work site, including maintaining the work area free of scattered materials (Labor Law § 241 [6]; Industrial Code [12 NYCRR] § 23-1.7 [e] [2]). Issues of fact exist as to whether Lehr failed to discharge that duty, and whether that violation contributed to plaintiffs injury (see e.g. DeSimone v Structure Tone, 306 AD2d [243]*24390 [2003]), thus precluding any grant of summary judgment to Lehr on its indemnification claims (Boss v Integral Constr. Corp., 249 AD2d 214, 215 [1998]). Concur — Andrias, J.E, Saxe, Sullivan, Ellerin and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, J.), entered January 14, 2004, as amended January 22, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied third-party plaintiff Lehr’s cross motion for common-law indemnification against defendant Wood-Pro II Installers and for contractual indemnification against defendant/third-party defendant William Summerville, Inc. and third-party defendant Nastasi & Associates, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The liability assigned to Lehr will not necessarily be vicarious, since it undertook responsibility for safety oversight at the work site, including maintaining the work area free of scattered materials (Labor Law § 241 [6]; Industrial Code [12 NYCRR] § 23-1.7 [e] [2]). Issues of fact exist as to whether Lehr failed to discharge that duty, and whether that violation contributed to plaintiffs injury (see e.g. DeSimone v Structure Tone, 306 AD2d [243]*24390 [2003]), thus precluding any grant of summary judgment to Lehr on its indemnification claims (Boss v Integral Constr. Corp., 249 AD2d 214, 215 [1998]). Concur — Andrias, J.E, Saxe, Sullivan, Ellerin and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 242, 788 N.Y.S.2d 855, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-lehr-construction-corp-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack