Summary
This Appellate Division, First Department decision reviews a trial court order partially granting summary judgment on a plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) claim while addressing related motions by third-party defendants. The appellate court affirmed the safety device claim but modified the lower court's ruling to dismiss claims against additional contractors and enforce contractual indemnification and insurance procurement obligations. The opinion also evaluates the sufficiency of hearsay evidence and uncertified medical records in defeating summary judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiff is entitled to partial summary judgment on his Labor Law §240(1) claim.
- Whether Inter Renovation Inc. is entitled to summary judgment on its Labor Law §200 and common‑law negligence claims.
- Whether Inter is entitled to indemnification and breach‑of‑insurance‑procurement summary judgments against Unibud.
- Whether Brenmac Corp. is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the third‑party complaint and cross‑claims.
Holdings
- The motion court correctly granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on his Labor Law §240(1) claim.
- Inter’s motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law §200 and common‑law negligence claims should have been granted.
- Inter is entitled to summary judgment on its indemnification claim and its breach‑of‑insurance‑procurement claim against Unibud.
- Brenmac should have been granted summary judgment dismissing the third‑party complaint and all cross‑claims against it.
Factual background
Marcos Berrones fell through a gap between a pipe scaffold and the building façade that was concealed by plastic nailed to the scaffold and building. The injury was caused by a defect in the scaffold erected by Unibud Restoration Corp.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, New York County entered an order on June 13, 2024 granting plaintiff partial summary judgment on his Labor Law §240(1) claim, denying Inter's motion to dismiss, and denying Brenmac's motion to dismiss. The parties appealed, and the Appellate Division reviewed the summary‑judgment rulings.