Summary
This Appellate Division, First Department decision affirms a Supreme Court order denying third-party defendant Eclipse Contracting Corp.'s motion for summary judgment. The court held that plaintiffs established a prima facie case under Labor Law § 240(1), rendering comparative negligence an invalid defense, and found factual disputes precluding summary judgment on indemnification, contribution, and breach of contract claims regarding insurance procurement. The court unanimously affirmed the lower court's order without costs.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether plaintiffs are entitled to partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law §240(1).
- Whether Eclipse is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the third‑party contractual indemnification claims.
- Whether Eclipse is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the third‑party common‑law indemnification and contribution claims.
- Whether Eclipse is entitled to summary judgment dismissing the third‑party breach of contract claim for failure to procure insurance.
- Whether liability under Labor Law §241(6) is a live issue.
Holdings
- Plaintiffs are entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law §240(1).
- Eclipse is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the third‑party contractual indemnification claims because factual issues as to its negligence remain.
- Eclipse is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the third‑party common‑law indemnification and contribution claims.
- Eclipse is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the breach of contract claim because it failed to establish procurement of the required insurance.
- The issue of liability under Labor Law §241(6) is academic.
Key quotations
“These facts established plaintiffs' prima facie entitlement to partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim ( see Touray v HFZ 11 Beach St. LLC , 180 AD3d 507 , 507 [1st Dept 2020]).” (*1)
“Eclipse is not entitled to summary judgment dismissing the third‑party contractual indemnification claims because issues of fact remain as to its negligence, particularly as to whether it failed to properly store its A‑frame cart and metal sheets by leaving them unattended in another trade's path.” (*2)
Factual background
Plaintiff Chris Nyanteh was moving an A‑frame cart loaded with heavy metal sheets when the cart’s wheel caught on debris, causing the cart and sheets to tip over and strike him.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, New York County denied Eclipse Contracting Corp.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third‑party complaint and second third‑party complaint and granted plaintiffs partial summary judgment on the Labor Law §240(1) claim. Eclipse appealed.