Tower v. Structure Tone, LLC

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department modified and otherwise affirmed an order concerning a construction-site injury involving a loose sprinkler pipe. The court granted the plaintiff partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 241(6) claim based on alleged violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1) and (e)(2), while finding the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims academic. The court also upheld conditional contractual indemnification for the general contractor and denial of summary judgment concerning related indemnity and contribution claims.

Holdings

1. Tower was entitled to partial summary judgment against Structure Tone and TGA-Owner because the loose sprinkler pipe and related debris constituted an obstruction or scattered working material in the route and working area where he fell, establishing violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1) and (e)(2).
2. The integral-to-the-work doctrine did not provide a defense to the alleged violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1) and (e)(2) because the loose pipe was not inherent to Tower's task and the danger could have been avoided without obstructing the work or imperiling the worker.
3. Structure Tone was properly granted conditional summary judgment on its contractual defense and indemnification claims against Jacobson and ABCO.
4. Jacobson was not entitled to summary judgment dismissing ABCO's cross-claims for common-law indemnity and contribution because the record did not establish as a matter of law that Tower and Jacobson were free from negligence.
5. The Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Structure Tone were rendered academic by the court's disposition of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Tower was entitled to partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 241(6) claim based on alleged violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1) and (e)(2).
2. Whether the integral-to-the-work doctrine barred the Labor Law § 241(6) claim.
3. Whether Structure Tone was entitled to conditional summary judgment on its contractual defense and indemnification claims against Jacobson and ABCO.
4. Whether Jacobson was entitled to summary judgment dismissing ABCO's cross-claims for common-law indemnity and contribution.
5. Whether the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Structure Tone remained justiciable after the Labor Law § 241(6) determination.

Disposition

other