From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. Lehr Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 10, 2005
15 A.D.3d 242 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

5342

February 10, 2005.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, J.), entered January 14, 2004, as amended January 22, 2004, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied third-party plaintiff Lehr's cross motion for common-law indemnification against defendant Wood-Pro II Installers and for contractual indemnification against defendant/third-party defendant William Summerville, Inc. and third-party defendant Nastasi Associates, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Ellerin and Sweeny, JJ., concur.


The liability assigned to Lehr will not necessarily be vicarious, since it undertook responsibility for safety oversight at the work site, including maintaining the work area free of scattered materials (Labor Law § 241; Industrial Code [12 NYCRR] § 23-1.7 [e] [2]). Issues of fact exist as to whether Lehr failed to discharge that duty, and whether that violation contributed to plaintiff's injury ( see e.g. DeSimone v. Structure Tone, 306 AD2d 90), thus precluding any grant of summary judgment to Lehr on its indemnification claims ( Boss v. Integral Constr. Corp., 249 AD2d 214, 215).


Summaries of

Taylor v. Lehr Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 10, 2005
15 A.D.3d 242 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

Taylor v. Lehr Construction Corp.

Case Details

Full title:DANNY TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. LEHR CONSTRUCTION CORP. et al., Defendants…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 10, 2005

Citations

15 A.D.3d 242 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
788 N.Y.S.2d 855

Citing Cases

Sternkopf v. 395 Hudson N.Y., LLC

Also, Fitzgerald was not entitled to summary judgment on its indemnification claim against ARI Products, Inc.…

Lopez v. Mid State Mgmt. Corp.

The Lefrak defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claims, there…