Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department modified and otherwise affirmed an order concerning a construction-site injury involving unsecured doorframes. The court upheld partial summary judgment for the plaintiff on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against the owner and general contractor, finding that the unsecured doorframes caused the injury and that defendants failed to raise a triable issue. The court also granted summary judgment to the hoist and crane defendants, dismissing claims and cross-claims for indemnification, contribution, negligence, and related relief.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff was entitled to partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim against the owner and general contractor.
- Whether Hoist/Crane were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the contractual indemnification, common-law indemnification, negligence, and contribution claims and cross-claims against them.
- Whether Hoist/Crane were entitled to summary judgment on their common-law indemnification and contribution claims against B&V Contracting Enterprises Inc.
Holdings
- Plaintiff established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim against the owner and general contractor because unsecured doorframes toppled onto him with significant gravitational force and the failure to secure them was a proximate cause of his injuries.
- Hoist/Crane were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the owner and general contractor's contractual indemnification claims because the provisions required a showing of fault by Hoist/Crane and the record contained no evidence of such fault.
- Hoist/Crane were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the common-law indemnification, negligence, and contribution claims and cross-claims because there was no evidence that they were negligent, and the owner and general contractor abandoned their common-law indemnification and contribution claims by failing to address them.
- B&V's contractual indemnification cross-claim against Hoist/Crane was properly dismissed because no agreement between them provided for contractual indemnity.
Key quotations
“Such language requires a showing of "fault" by the indemnitor in order to trigger the obligation to indemnify” (at *1)
“THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.” (at *1)
Factual background
Juan Siguencia was working in a crouched position at a construction project when several unsecured doorframes, each approximately 250 pounds and nine feet tall, toppled from where they were leaning against a wall and struck him. His account was corroborated by a coworker's affidavit, photographs showing unsecured, stacked, and leaning doorframes elsewhere at the project, and an incident investigation report identifying the coworker as a witness. There was no evidence that New York Hoist, LLC or NYC Crane Hoist & Rigging, LLC stored the doorframes or otherwise caused their toppling.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, New York County, granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim against the owner and general contractor and denied Hoist/Crane's motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division unanimously modified the order to grant Hoist/Crane summary judgment dismissing all claims and cross-claims against them, and otherwise affirmed.
Remand instructions
None stated; the order was modified to grant Hoist/Crane summary judgment dismissing all claims and cross-claims against them and was otherwise affirmed.