Summary
In Collins v Switzer Constr. Group, Inc., 69 AD3d 407 (1st Dept 2010), the plaintiff-electrician was injured when he stepped from a ladder and slipped on debris around it.
Summary of this case from Coughlin v 590 Madison Ave., LLCOpinion
No. 1927.
January 5, 2010.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marylin G. Diamond, J.), entered April 15, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant Switzer Construction Group, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, and granted the cross motion by defendants Time, Inc. and 135 West 50th Owner, LLC for leave to amend their answer to assert cross claims for contractual indemnification against Switzer and for summary judgment on said cross claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Law Office of James J. Toomey, New York (Evy L. Kazansky of counsel), for appellant.
Law Office of David P. Kownacki, P.C., New York (Andrew D. Leftt of counsel), for Collins respondents.
Newman Myers Kreines Gross Harris, P.C., New York (Charles W. Kreines of counsel), for Time Inc. and 135 West 50th Owner, LLC, respondents.
Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, McGuire and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
Plaintiff, an electrician, was injured when, in the course of installing conduit sleeves, he stepped off a ladder and slipped on debris scattered around the ladder. Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (e) (2) requires that areas of floors where persons work "be kept free from accumulations of. . . debris . . . insofar as may be consistent with the work being performed." Pointing to plaintiffs statement in accident reports that he slipped on conduit debris, Switzer seeks to dismiss plaintiffs Labor Law § 241 (6) claim on the ground that the debris on which he slipped was created by him and was therefore "an integral part of the work he was performing" ( see Appelbaum v 100 Church, 6 AD3d 310, 310 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). However, plaintiffs deposition testimony that there were other trades working at the same time and that the debris on which he slipped was different from any of the electrical materials he had been using raises an issue of fact whether he created the debris.
Switzer's claim of prejudice resulting from Time's and 135 West 50th Owner's amendment of their answer to assert cross claims for contractual indemnification against it is belied by the fact that Time and 135 West 50th Owner demanded, on two separate occasions, a defense and indemnification under the parties' agreement. Moreover, Switzer cannot reasonably claim to be surprised by its own contractual obligations. As neither Time nor 135 West 50th Owner was negligent in connection with plaintiffs accident, the indemnification and defense clauses in their agreement are not unenforceable and void under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1 ( see Brooks v Judlau Contr, Inc., 11 NY3d 204). We have considered Switzer's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.