Opinion
143
February 5, 2002.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about September 27, 2000, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim and granted defendant/third-party plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment on its claim for contractual indemnification against third-party defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
LEWIS H. FISHLIN, for plaintiff-respondent.
CAROL R. FINOCCHIO, for defendant/third-party plaintiff-respondent.
BRIAN J. ISAAC, for third-party defendant-appellant.
Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Wallach, Friedman, JJ.
The motion court properly determined that plaintiff construction worker was not a recalcitrant worker for failing to wear a hard hat at the time a piece of metal fell from above and struck him in the head. A hard hat is not the type of safety device enumerated in Labor Law § 240(1) to be constructed, placed and operated, so as to give proper protection from extraordinary elevation-related risks to a construction worker (see, Rosa v. R.H. Macy Co., Inc., 272 A.D.2d 87).
The motion court also correctly held that defendant/third-party plaintiff owner was entitled to contractual indemnification from third-party defendant contractor since it was clear, as a matter of law, that third-party plaintiff did not supervise or control third-party defendant's workers or the manner and method of the third-party defendant's work and there was no causal nexus between plaintiff's accident and any negligence on the part of third-party plaintiff (see,Mangano v. Am. Stock Exchange, Inc., 234 A.D.2d 198, 199).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.