Vurchio v. Kalikow Lincoln Development Co.

187 A.D.2d 280, 589 N.Y.S.2d 440, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12617
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 5, 1992
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 187 A.D.2d 280 (Vurchio v. Kalikow Lincoln Development Co.) 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
Vurchio v. Kalikow Lincoln Development Co., 187 A.D.2d 280, 589 N.Y.S.2d 440, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12617 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan J. Saks, J.), entered on or about March 17, 1992, which, inter alia, granted defendants and third-party plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against third-party defendant Circle Industries, Inc., a division of Nastasi & White, Inc., unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Partial summary judgment as to liability was properly granted to plaintiff on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against the defendants and third-party plaintiffs, who are the owner and general contractor of a construction site where he sustained injuries.

Plaintiff was employed as a carpenter by subcontractor third-party defendant Circle and was doing work at an elevation level of two and one half feet on top of a sawhorse constructed and maintained by Circle personnel, when it collapsed, causing him to fall to the ground and sustain injuries. Under these circumstances, the IAS Court correctly determined that plaintiff was engaged in an activity covered by Labor Law § 240 (1) and that the defendants and third-party plaintiffs are absolutely liable (see, Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 514; Bilderback v Agway Petroleum Corp., 185 AD2d 372).

Furthermore, the IAS Court properly determined defendants and third-party plaintiffs’ entitlement, as a matter of [281]*281law, to contractual indemnification against Circle Industries, as there was no factual issue concerning the existence of any negligence on their part (see, Brown v Two Exch. Plaza Partners, 76 NY2d 172). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

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

Related

Pizzola v. Tutor Perini Corp.
2025 NY Slip Op 30657(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Amo v. Little Rapids Corp.
301 A.D.2d 698 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Shapiro v. ACG Equity Associates, L.P.
233 A.D.2d 857 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
ITRI Brick & Concrete Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
228 A.D.2d 165 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
187 A.D.2d 280, 589 N.Y.S.2d 440, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vurchio-v-kalikow-lincoln-development-co-nyappdiv-1992.