From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sanango v. 200 East 16th Street Housing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 3, 2002
290 A.D.2d 228 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

5790

January 3, 2002.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.), entered May 22, 2001, which, in an action by a laborer for injuries sustained at a work site, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant/third-party plaintiff site owner's motion for summary judgment on its claim for contractual indemnification against third-party defendant pointing contractor, also plaintiff's employer, and granted plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of the site owner's liability on plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

ALEXANDER J. WULWICK, for plaintiff-respondent.

JOELLE N. DUVAL, for third-party plaintiff-respondent.

CRAIG P. MAURO, for third-party defendant-appellant.

Before: Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Lerner, Rubin, Buckley, JJ.


Plaintiff's deposition testimony that the ladder he was provided wobbled as he stepped on it to descend from a higher to a lower terrace, causing him to fall, entitles him to summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240(1) claim absent evidence raising an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident (see,Wasilewski v. Museum of Modern Art, 260 A.D.2d 271; Angeles v. Goldhirsch, 268 A.D.2d 217; see also, Kash v. McCann Real Equities Devs., 279 A.D.2d 432). No such issue of fact is raised. The deposition testimony of the contractor's officer that the ladder was secure lacks probative value since he admitted that he did not inspect the ladder the same day as the accident, could not say how many days after the accident he inspected it, and could not say what, if anything, had been done to it in the meantime. Nor does an issue of fact exist as to whether plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker where there is no evidence that he disobeyed an immediate instruction to use a harness or other actually available safety device (see, Balthazar v. Full Circle Constr. Corp., 268 A.D.2d 96, 99; Aragon v. 233 W. 21st St., 201 A.D.2d 353). The site owner was properly granted summary judgment on its claim for contractual indemnification against the contractor upon a showing that in accordance with their contract, the contractor in fact provided the ladders and otherwise controlled plaintiff's work, and that the site owner at most had only a general supervisory role at the work site (see, Narvaez v. 4518 Assocs., 250 A.D.2d 436;Aragon v. 233 W. 21st St., supra).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Sanango v. 200 East 16th Street Housing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 3, 2002
290 A.D.2d 228 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Sanango v. 200 East 16th Street Housing

Case Details

Full title:ARCENIO SANANGO, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. 200 EAST 16TH STREET HOUSING…

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

Date published: Jan 3, 2002

Citations

290 A.D.2d 228 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
736 N.Y.S.2d 321

Citing Cases

Quinones v. Olmstead Props., Inc.

to obtain a safety device himself only when the plaintiff "knows exactly" its location, and when "there is a…

Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority

We affirm. We find no question that the recalcitrant worker defense is not applicable to the facts of the…