Dunne v Bovis Lend Lease Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Dunne v Bovis Lend Lease Inc. 2005 NY Slip Op 30281(U) August 29, 2005 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 0602549/2001 Judge: Marilyn Shafer Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. SCANNED ON 91112005 [* 1 ] li SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW ORK - NEW YORK COUNTY PART 36 Justice .... his motion to/for PAPERS NUMBERED Notice of Motion/ Order t o Show Cause .. Answering Affidavits cn - Affidavits - Exhibits .._ Replying Affidavits Y 2 0 cn 4 - Exhibits n Cross-Motion: Yes 0 No w D: Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion L,-+z-- i E FINAL DISPOSITION 1 P N O N - F I N A L DISPOSITION Check if appropriate: I_-1 DO NOT POST 1 REFERENCE 1 Check one: \ [* 2 ] Plainti ¬f, -against- Index No. 602549/01 BOVIS L E N D J.,EASE INC. and YESHIVA UNIVERSITY, Defendants. -X BOVIS T.,END LEASE INC. amd YESHIVA UNIVERS I'L'Y , Tlij.rd-Party P l a i n t i f f s , aya i.nst - IIENEGHAN CONTEWC'I'ING CORP . ASSOCIATES C O l i P . , x i d TAGGART Marilyn Shafer, J.: Motions w i t h sequence numbers O O I . , 002, arid 003 are consolidated f o r d i s p o s i t i o n . .1.n motion sequence riurriber 0 0 1 , t l - i i i - d - p a r t y d e f e n d a n t I-Ieneghan Cont-ract.ing Corp. (HCC) moves, pursuant to CPLR 3212, (1) ¬or summary judgment d i s m i s s i n g all common-l a w n e g l i g e n c e claims a s s e r t e d a s a g a i n s t i t ; and ( 2 ) f o r a c o n d i t i o n a l summary ji.idgrner-it i r i its f a v o r a g a i n s t A s s o c i a t e s Tlorp. TO-third -part-y d e f e n d a n t Taggartr (Taygart), In motion sequence number 002, d e f e n d a n t s Bovis Lend 1 [* 3 ] Lease I n c . ( R 0 v i . s ) and Yeshiva U n i v e r s i t y deEendants) wive, p u r s u a n t t o CPLR 3 2 1 2 , ( Y e s h i v a ; together, (1) for- summary judgmerit d i s m i s s i n g t h e corriplaint ; and ( 2 ) f o r surnrriary judgment or1 t.hEt1.r c o n t r a c t . u a 1 arid common law i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n clairn:; a g a i n s t t h i r d - party d e f e n d a n t s , r e q u i r i n g one o r b o t h of them t o defend and indemnify d e f e n d a n t s . I n motion sequence riurnber 0 0 3 , p l a i n t i f f m o v e s , p u r s u a n t t o ClPLR 3 2 1 2 , f o r p a r t i a l summary judgment on h i s Labor Law 5 210 (1) c l a i m , arid f o r a n order- d i r e c t i n g t h e C a l e n d a r C l e r k t o s e t t h i s m a t t e r down f o r an a s s e s s m e n t of damages against defendants. BACKGROUND O n Apri.1. 1 0 , 2 0 0 1 , plaintiff, a c o r i s L r u c t : i o n labc~rcr emp1c)yed by H C X , w a s working on t h e s r o u n d f l o o r of a c o n s t r - u c t i o n s i t e l o c a t e d a t 1 3 0 0 Morris Park Avenue i n the Bronx. A three-story building, which would house l a b o r a t o r i e s , o f f i c c s , imd s e v e r a l MRI i.inljts, was b e i n g b u i l l : t h e r e as p a r t of t h e Albert. E i i n s L e i n Collecjc of Medicine. the property. Yeshi.va i s the owner of Yeshiva r e t a i n e d Bovis t o be t h e c o n v t . r u c t i o n mar-lager f o r the p r o j e c t . HCC was r e t a i n e d by Bovis t o do the e x c a v a t i o n , masonry, c o n c r e t e , and p l a s t e r i n g work a t t h e site, a n d Hovis h i r e d Tagyar-t to do the plumbing work t h e r e . On the day of t h c aczident, A p r i l 10, 2 0 0 1 , l'aggar-t employees w e r e workinq 01-1 tliz roof of t h c b u i l d i n g , t r - y i n q t o e s t a b l i s h a l e v e l 2 [* 4 ] l i n e f o r t h e roof d r a i n s . To do t h i s , T a g g a r t s foreman on t h e j o b , J o s e p h Ciano, d e v i s e d h i s o w n s y s t e m , n e v e r b e f o r e used, whereby he att.acl-ied t h r e e l e a d w e i g h t s , e a c h weighing between t h r e e arid f i v e pounds, t o a 1 / 8 - i n c h nylon s t r i n g , arid hung t h e wei.ghts over t h e edge of t h e r o o f . P l a i n t i . f f was working below, reinovirig t h e plywood from forms of a s l a b , when t h e s t r i n g brolc-e, arid t h e t h r e e weig1it.s f e l l three s t o r i e s , h i t t i n g p l a i n t i f E on h i s head, i n j u r i n g him d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t - h a t he was wearing a 1haI-d h a t . THE PLEADINGS P l a i n t i f f s complaint c o n s i s t s of one cause of a c t i o n , which alleges c l a i m s oL common-law n e g l i g e n c e and v i o l a t i o n s of Labor L a w §§ 200, 240 (11, and 2 4 1 ( 6 ) . P l a i n t i f f has s i n c e acknowledged that he h a s r:o Labor Law S 2 0 0 or- common-law n c g l i g e n c e c l a i m s a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s (Motion Sequence Number 0 0 2 , Dowries 2 / 1 8 / 0 5 Affirm. i n Opp., 7 10). Thus, t h e o n l y r e m a i n i n g c l a i m s in the complaint a r e t h o s e a l l e g i n g v i o l a t i o n s of Labor Law 5 5 2110 ( 1 ) and 241 ( 6 ) . Defendants aiiswc?r b a s i c a l l y d e n i e s the a l l e y a t i o n s o f t.lie complaj.nt . In t h e i r t h i r d - p a r t y complaint., d e f e n d a n t s / t l l i r d - - p a r t y p7.ai t i t i f L s allege s i x c a u s e s of a c t i o n , a s s e r t i n g clairns soundinq i n contr.actual iriderrmif i c a t i o n , common-law indemnity orc o n t r i b u t . i o n , and b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t by f a i l u r e t o p r o c u r e 3 [* 5 ] i n s u r a n c e a g a i n s t HCC arid Tagyart. r e s p e c t i v e l y . l aqjyart s answer L o t h e t h i r d - p a r t y complaint a s s e r t s cine c r o s s c l a i m a g a i n s t HCC, souridi ng in comrrmn-law i n d e m n i t y or c o n t r i , b u t i o r i , arid one c o u n t e r c l a i m a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s , also soundi.nq i n common- l a w indemnity o r c o n t r i b u t i o n . H E s answer t o t h c Ll-iird-party cornplaint a l l e g e s fourcross c l a i m s ayainslr. Taggart : for- c o n t r i b u t i o n , coinmori-law i rid e m i f i c a t i.on, con t r a c t11 a 1 i ndemni f i c a t i on , and b r c ach o f n c o n t r a c t by f a i l u r e t o p r o c u r e i n s u r a n c e . HCC also asserts a c o u n t e r c l a i m a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s , demanding t h a t d e f e n d a n t s l i a b i l i t y be d e t e r m i n e d and a p p o r t i o n e d a s between t h e m s e l v e s - .En ;idditi.on, HCC s s e v e n t h a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e seeks dismissal o f the t h i r d - p a r t y c o m p l a i n t , o r c e r t a i n c a u s e s of a c t i o n asserted ther.eiIi ( H W Answer t.c Third-party Complaint, 1 TWENTY- F I R S T ) , on t h e ground t.hat t h e Workers Compensation Law p r e c l u d e s de f e nda1t 9 a c t i on ag a i 11 s L H CC , p 1a ir i t i f f 8 e rnp 1oye L . 1 Def el-ida 1-1t s coricedcl that. t h e i r - common-law i n d c m n i f i c a t i o n c l a i m f a i l s b e c a u s e of Workers Compensation Law § 11 (Motion Sequence Number 002, Chaves 5 / 3 / 0 5 Reply Affirm., 1 11). DISCUSSION Defendants Summary Judgment Motion (Motion Sequence N u m b e r 002) To Dismiss the Complaint Defendants s e e k summary judgment d i s m i s s i n g t h e complaint on t:.he f o l l o w i n g b a s e s : 4 (1) t h e weights that f e l l . on [* 6 ] p l a i n t i f f w e r e noL b e i n g h o i s t e d or- s e c u r e d ; C h e r e f o r e , no Labor T,aw S 2 4 0 (1) c 1 a i . m lies; arid (2) no Labor L a w § 211 (6) c l a i m l i e s because t h e I n d u s t . r i a 1 Code s e c t i o n s or1 whi-ch p l a i n t i f f b a s e s h i s claim a r e e i t h e r i n a p p l i c a b l e , or a r e i n s u f f i c i e n t l y aplecific. t.o s u p p o r t a s e c t i o n 2 4 1 (6) c l a i m . Labor L a w § 240 (1) Labor Law § 240 ( 1 ) imposes absolute l i a b i l i t y on owners , contractors and a g e n t s f o r t - h e i r failure t o p r o v i d e workers w i t h s a f e t y devices t h a t properly p r o t e c t against Breach of elevation-related special hazards. t h e s t a t u t o r y d u t y must be the p r o x i m a t e cause of t h e injury. The statute i s t.o be i . n t . e r p r e t e d l i b e r a l l y t.o accompl ri.sh i t s p ur-posFf ( S t r i c q . c . 1 v H i l l . c r e s t I I e i g h t s U e v e l o p m ~ n tCorp. , 100 NY2d 974, 9 ' [ 2 0 0 3 ] ). 77 " [ T l h e purpose of the s t a t u t e i s t o protect workers by p l a c i n g u l t i m a t e r e s p o n n i b i l i t y f o r s a f e t y p r a c t i c e s o n owners and c o n t r a c t > o r s i n s t e a d of on workers t h e m s e l v e s " (Panek 17 County of Albany, 99 NY2d 452, 456 l Z 0 0 3 1 ) . Althouyh t h i s m a t t e r irivol.ves a falling o b j e c t which injur-ed p l a i n t i f f , "not e v e r y object t - h a t f a l l s on a worker11 g i v e s r i s e t o the e x t r a o r d i n a r y p r o t - e c t i o n s o f Labor Law 5 2 4 0 (1) Hat-her-, l i a h i l i t y i s c o n t i n g e n t upon t h e e x i s t e n c e of a h a z a r d c o n t e m p l a t e d i n sec:ti..on 2/10 (1) and t h e failure t o u s e , t h e inadequacy o f , a s a f e t y d e v i c e of t h e k i n d enumerated therein'' ( N a r d u c c i v Manhasset B a y A s s o c i a t e s , 96 NY2d 259, 2 6 7 [ZOOlI) - In o r d e r t o p r e v a i l on a " f a l l i n g o b j e c t " s e c t i o n 2 4 0 5 01- [* 7 ] (1) c a s e , [ a] p l a i n t i f f m u s t show t h a t t h e o b j e c t f e l l , w h i l e b e i n g h o i s t e d o r s e c u r e d , b e c a u s e o f t h e absence o r inadequacy o f a s a f e t y d e v i c e of t h e k i n d enumerated i n t h e s t a t u k e ( i d . a t 268 [emphasis i.n o r i y i r i a l ] ) which would have bceri n e c e s s a r y or ( i b i d . ; quolred i n Roberts v G e n e r a l E l e c t r i c Co. cveri expected'" 37 NY2d 1 3 7 , 7.38 [2002]). L a b o r Law 5 2 4 0 (1) a p p l i e s w h e r e t h e f a l l i n g of an o b j e c t i s r e l a t e d t o a s i g n i f i c a n t r i s k inherent i n , . - the relative elevation .. . a t which materials o r loads m u s t bc p o s i t i o n e d o r s e c u r e d ( P c r i l . 7 0 v Lehigh C o n s t r u c t i o n Group, 1 7 AD3d 1136, 1 1 3 7 [ 4 t h Dept 20051 , q u o t i n g Narducci, 3 6 NY2d a t 2 6 7 - 2 6 8 ; see a l s o Salinas v Barney S k a n s k a C o n s t r u c t i o n Co., 2 AD3d 619, 6 2 1 [2d Dept 2 0 0 3 1 ) . Here, i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e nylon s t r i n g / r n p e w a s i n t e n d c d t o suspend Lhe w e i g h t s fr-om the r o o f , a s w e l l a s t o s e c u r e them from f a l l i n g . I t is also c l e a r t h a t the p o s s i b i l i t y of t-he w e i g h t s f a l l i n g because of t h e i r placement o v e r t h e s i d e of t h e r-oof posed a s i g n i f i c a n t risk t o workers below b e c a u s e of the e l e v a t i o n of t h e r o o f . Because of t h i s s i g n i f i c a n t r i s k , a n a d e q u a t e means of securing the w e i g h t s f r o m f a l l i n g while t h e y were suspende(3 was b o t h n e c e s s a r y and e x p e c t e d . proved i n a d e q i i a t e . T h e nylon s t r i n g The w e i g h t s f e l l and i n j u r e d p l a i n t i f f - E ) l a : i n t i f f h a s s t a t e d a c l a . i m sounding i n a v i o l a t i o n of Labor- Law S 2 4 0 (1) a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s , and t h a t p a r t of d e f e n d a n t s motion which seeks d i s m i s s a l of t h i s c l a i m i s d e n i e d . 6 I [* 8 ] L a b o r L a w 5 241 ( 6 ) "Labor Law § 241 (6) 'imposes a nondelegable duty upon owners arid contractors to provide reasonable and adequate p r o t e c t i o n arid safety L o construction workers"' Co., 304 AD2d '/52, 7 5 2 (Walker v Ekl-eco [2d Deyt 20031, yuotj.ng Comes v N e w Y o r k . S t a t c E l e c t r j c 61 Gas C o r p . , 82 NY2d 876, 878 [13931). 11-1 order- "to staLe a c l a i m under Labor Law S 241 ( 6 ) , a plaintiff m u s t identify a specific Industrial Code provision mandating corripl i a.nce w i t h concrete specifications" (Walker v M e t r o - N o r L l z Commuter R ; i i l r o i . t d , 11 A D 3 d 3 3 9 , 340 [Ist Dept. 200411, as oppoEed to " t h o s e that est.ablisl-1 general :;afet.y s t a n d a r d s " ( R o s s v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Electric Co., 81 N Y 2 d 494, 505 [19931). 'The duty is prescribed upon owners, contractors, and their agents "regardless of t h e ].eve1 of corit-rol or supervision" which the p a r t y exercises over- the work ( P i c c o l o v S L . J o h n ' s Home for the Aging, 11 AD3d 884, 886 14th Dept 20041). In his bill of particulars, plaintiff alleges t h a t defendants violated the following sections of the Industrial Code: 12 NYCRR §§ 23-1.7 (a) (1) and (2); 2 3 - l . 8 ( c ) (1); %3-1.3:1 (a) (1) (2), arid ( 3 ) ; arid 23-5.1 ( i ) . , E a c h of these subsection:: is either iri.a;qpliceibleor is not s u f f i c i c n t l y specific to s u p p o r t a section 241 (6) claim : secti.on 23-1.7 (a) (1) does riot app1.y because plain-,iff was not "normally exposed to falling objects" (see e.!?. P e r . i I l o v Lehigh Construction G r o u p , 17 AD3d 1136 [4th 7 [* 9 ] Dept 2 0 0 5 1 ; McLaughlin v Malone 6; Tate Builders, 13 A D 3 d 859 [ 3 d Dept 20041; Q u i n J a n v C i t y of New York, 2 9 3 AD2d 2 6 2 [ l s t Dept 2 0 0 2 ) ; s e c t i o n 2 5 1 . 7 (a) ( 2 ) i s i n a p p l i c a b l e b e c a u s e p l a i n t . i f f d i d have t o work where lie w a s working; s e c t i o n 23-1.8 ( c ) (I) does not- a p p l y bec:auac p l a i n r i f f w a s wearing a hard hat; section 2 3 - 1 . 3 3 i s i n a p p l i c a b 1 . e becauac t h i s s e c t i o n does n o t a p p l y t o workers a[; a c o n s t r u c t i o n s i r e (see Mancini v P e d r a C o n s t r u c t i o ~ i , 2 9 3 m 2 d 4.53 [2d Dept 2 0 0 2 ] ) , p l u s t h e s e c t i o n i s n o t s p e c i f i c enough t o support a s e c t i o n 2 4 1 ( 6 ) c l a i m (see e - g . I l i 1 1 v Corning Inc., 2 3 7 AD2d 8 8 1 [ 4 t h D e p t 1 9 9 7 1 ; McMahon v Durst, 224 AD2d 3 2 4 [ l s t , Dept 19961; b u t see O z z i m o v H.E.S., I n c . , 249 AII%d 912 [ 4 t h Dept 1 9 9 8 1 ) ; and s e c t i o n 23-5.1 because 1 0 1 s c a f f o l d w a s involved j.n (1) does not: a p p l y t h i s accident. I hercfore, t h a t part of d e f e n d a n t s motion which s e e k s surnmary judg:rient dismissing t h e s e c t i - o n 2 4 1 ( 6 ) c:l.aim i s g r a n t e d . For Summary Judgment on Their Contractual and Common-Law Indemnification Claims Against Third-party Defendants HCC and Taggart Common-Law Indemnification T o e s t a b l i s h a c l a i m for common-law iridemnif i c a t i o n , t h e one seeking i n d e m n i t y m u s t prove riot o n l y t h a t i t was not guilty o ¬ any n e g l i g e n c e beyond t h e s t a t u t o r y l i a b i l i t y but must a l s o prove t h a t t h e proposed i n d e m n i t o r w a s g u i l t y o f some n e q l i g e n c c t h a t c o n t r i b u t e d t o the c a u s a t i o n of t h e a c c i d e n t [ c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ] o r i n t h e absence of any neg 1i ge 11 ce tha t t h e p r op os e d i ride m i to r had n t h e a u t h o r i t y t o d i s e c t , s u p e r v i s e , and c o n t r o l t h e work g i v i n g r i s e t o t h e injury 8 [* 10 ] [ c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ] . Where the proposed i n d e m n i t e e s l i a b i l i t y i s purely statutory and v i c a r i o u s c o n d i t i o n a l su.mmary j udcjmerit f o r common-law i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n against a proposed. i n d e m n i t o r is p r e m a t u r e a b s e n t p r o o f , a s a m a t t e r of l a w , t h a t t h e proposed i,ridernnitor w a s either n e g l i g e n t o r exc Iusi v c l y supervised and c o n t r o l l e d p l a i n t i f f s w o r k [ c i t a t i o n s ori.iitted1 ( P e r r i v G i . l b e r t Johnson E n t e r p r i s e s , Ltd., 14 AD3d 681, 684-685 [2d D e p t 2 0 0 5 1 78 ; see a l s o H a w t h o r n e v S o u t h Bronx Community C o r p . , NY2d 433, 4.37 [ 1 9 9 1 ] ; 1 . 2 7 , 139 [1.sL. Dept. 2 0 0 4 1 ; Sal.arnone v W i n c a f P r o p e r t i e s , 3 AD3d A r a y o n v 233 West 2lst S t r e e t , Inc., 201 AD2t3 3 5 3 , 354 [ l s t Dept 1 9 9 4 1 ; Seecharran v 100 W e s t 3 3 r d Street: . R c a l t . y c orp., 198 AD2d 1 2 1 , 1 2 2 [lst D e p t 1 9 9 3 1 ) . Here p l a i n t i f f has acknowlcdyed t h a t he has no c o m m o n - 1,aw n e g l i g e n c e o r Labor Law Thus, § 2 0 0 claim a g a i n s t defendants. Llie f i r s t prong of t h e t e s t for e r l t i t l e m e n t of commori-law indemnification is m e t . However, s i n c e d e f e n d a n t s have conceded t h a t t h e i r common-law i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n c l a i m a g a i n s t HCC must f a i l because of the p r o v i s i o n s of Workers Compensatj-on Law § 11, d e f e n d a n t s cannot. r e c o v e r common-law iridemnif i c a t i , o n from H C C . W i t h r e s p e c t t o Taggart, it h a s n o t y e t been detcrrriincd whether Tayyart: w a s g u i l t y of Some n e g l i g e n c e t h a t coritribut-ed t.o t h e c a u s a t i o n of the accident, but. it i s clear that o n l y T a g y a r t direc:tc!d, s u p e r v i s e d , and cont.rollc!d thc plunbing w o r k t h a t y a v c r i s e t.o p l a i n t i f c s i n j u r i e s ( s e e Toscano D e p o . , a t 72) . Thus, deferida1it.s arc? e n t - i t l e d to common-law i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n from 9 [* 11 ] Taggart Contractual Indemnification A p a r t y is e n t i t l e d to f u l l c o n t r a c t u a l indernrii f i c a t i o n p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e i n t e n t i o n t o i n d e m n i f y c a n be clear-1.y i m p l i e d from the laiiyuaye arid p u r p o s e s of t h e e n t i r e agreement, aiid the s u r r o u n d i n g f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s q u o t a t i - o n inarks arid c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ] . T n t e r n a t . j . m ~ a l ,14 AD3d 401, 4 0 3 [i n t c r i n r (Torres. v Morse lliescl [lat D e p t , 20051; Masciotta v Morse-Diesel International, 3 0 3 AD2d 3 0 9 , 3 1 0 [ l s t Dept 2 0 0 3 1 1 Th.e i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n provisions of t h e Bovis/HCC and Bovis/Taggart s u b c o n t r a c t s are i d e n t i c a l . . A r t i c l e 1 2 of t h e s u b c o n t r a c t s provides, i n r e l e v a n t p a r t . : T o t h e full e x t e n t p e r m i t t e d by l a w , S u b c o n t r a c t o r [HCC/Taggart] agrees t o d e f e n d , indeiruiify and save h a r m l e s s C ontract.or [ B o v i s ] arid Owner [Yeshiva] . . . from and a g a i n s t any c l a i m , cost, e x p e n s e , o r l i a b i l i t y (including attorneys fees) a t t r i b u t a b l e t o b o d i l y i n j u r y , . . caused by, a r i s i . n g out o f , r e s u l t i n g from, or o c c u r r i n g in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e performance of t h c Work by S u b c o n t r a c t o r . . . whethcr o r n o t causcd i n p a r t by t h e activc o r p a s s i v e n e g l i , g e n c e or o t h e r f a u l t of a p a r t y iridernnif i e d h e r e u n d e r ; p r o , v i d e d , however-, S u b c o n t r a c t o r s duty h e r e u n d e r s h a l l n o t a r i s e i f s u c h i n j u r y . . i s c a u s e d by t h e s o l e n e g l i g e n c e of a p a r t y i n d e m n i f i e d hereunder. I IICC m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h i s p r o v i s i o n r u n s O b l i g a t i o n s Law ( G O L ) § 5-322.1, afoul of G e n e r a l which d e c l a r e s v o i d any agreement p u r p o r t i n g t o indemnify c o n t r a c t o r s a g a i n s t l i a b i l i t y 10 . . . [* 12 ] f o r i n j u r i e s c o n t ; r i b u t e d t o , c a u s e d by o r - r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e i r own n e g l i g e n c e , whether such n e g l i g e n c e be i n w k m 1 . e o r in p a r t " (Ma:;c.iotta v Morse,'Diesel I n t e r n a t i o n a l . , 3 0 3 AD2d at- 311) . The statlit-e i s i n a p p l i c a b l e , however, a b s e n t a f indirig of n e g l i g e n c c on t h e part: 'of the p a r t y aeelcirig indemnif i c a t . i o i i . 1 1c o n s t r u i n g 1 a n i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n p r o v i s i o n v e r y 1.ike t h e one at. i s s u e h e r e , t h e A p p e l l a t e D i v i s i o n , Fi.rat Department, has f o u r i d t h a t t h e clause c a l l s f o r p a r t i a l , n o t f u l l , i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n of the g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r f o r p e r s o n a l i n j u r i e s p a r t i a l l y caused by i t s n e g l i g e n c e , and i s t h e r e f o r e e n f o r c e a b l e . W e r-each t h i s c o n c l u s i o n i n ' v i e w of t h e phrase:: l i m i t i n g the s u b c o n t r a c t o r ' 3 o b l i g a k i o n t o t . h L permitted by l a w and excluding l i a b j . l i t y c r e a t e d . by t h e g e n e r a l cant-ractor 3 s o l e and exclusive negligence ( U u t t o n v C h a r l e s Pankow Builders, L t d . , 2 9 6 AD2d 3 2 1 , 3 2 2 [lst Uept 2 0 0 2 1 ; see a l s o Landgraff v I579 Bronx R i v e r A v e n u e , LLC, 18 AD3d 3 8 S , 3 8 7 [Ist Dept 2 0 0 5 1 [ c i t i - n g D u t t o n ] ; Mannino v J . A . Jones C o n s t r u c t i o n Group, LLC, 16 AD3d 2 3 5 , 2 3 6 [Ist Dept 2 0 0 5 1 [cit.ir-iy D u t t o n ] ; McGuinness v Hertz C o r p . , 1 5 AD3d 1 6 0 , 1 6 1 [lst Dcpt 20051 [ c i t i n g Duttonl 1 . 'l'hus, t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e Bovis/HCC and Bovis/TaggarL s u b c o n t r a c t s p r o v i d e f o r HCC and TaggarL's p a r t i a l indcmriific:at.ion of d e f e n d a n t s , t h a t . pax-t of d e f e n d a n t s ' motion w h i c h s c c k s summary judgment on t-his i s s u e i:; granted. Plaintiff's Motion f o r Partial Summary Judgment (Motion Sequence Number 003) 11 [* 13 ] F o r t h e r e a s o n s stated above, p l a i n t i f f ' s motion i s g r a n t e d t.o t h e e x t e n t t - h a t p l a i n t i f f i s g r a n t e d p a r t i a l summary j u d g m e r i t o n t-he issue of d e f e n d a n t s ' 240 l i a b i l i t y u n d e r Labor L a w 5 (l), and the mot-ion i s o t h e r w i s e d e n i e d . HCC's Motion f o r Summary Judgment (Motion Sequence Number 001) To Dismiss All Common-Law Negligence Claims Asserted A g a h s t It N e i t h c l r d e f e i i d a n t s n o r 'Tagyart liave alleyed a c l a i m f o r cotnmoiI- l a w neg1 i g e n c e a g a i n s t HCC, Therefore , t h i s part of I-ICC' s mot i o n for' summary judgment i s d e n i e d . Fox Conditional Summary Judgment in Its Favor Againat Taggart HCC alleges f o u r c a u s e s of a c t i o n a g a i n s t Taggart, for c o n t r i b u t i o n , common-l a w i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n , contractual i n d e t n r i i f i c a t i o n , and b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t by f a i l u r e t o procure insurance. " C o n t r i b u t i o n i s available where L o r t - f e a s o r s conhj.ne to cause an i n j u r y ' \ two or- more arid i s det.crrriined ' i n accord.arics w i t h . t h e r c l a t i v e c u l p a b i 1 i . t . y of each such p e r s o n ' [ c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ] " (Godoy v Abamaster of M i a m i , 3 0 2 AD2d 5 7 , 61 [2d Dept 20031 ; see a l s o Mas v Two Bridges A s s o c i a t e s , 75 N Y 2 d 6 8 0 , 689-630 C19301; R o s a d o v Proctor & S c h w a r t z , 24 1198Sl). Here, 110 6 6 NY2d 2 1 , 23- claim for common-1.aw n e g l i g e n c e has bceri a s s e r t e d a g a i i i s t e i t h e r HCC or Tagyart.; t h u s , no f i n d i n g has been made with r e s p e c t t o whether o n e , b o t h , o r n e i t h e r of the third- 12 [* 14 ] party d e f e n d a n t s was n e g l i g e n t o r c a u s e d p l a i n t i f f 3 a c c i d e n t i n any way. AI though d e f e n d a n t s were g r a n t e d common,-law i n d e r n n i f i c a t i o n a s a g a i n s t T a y g a r t , t h a t . d e t e r m i n a t i o n was made on t h e basis of T a g y a r t s d i r e c t i o n , control, and s u p e r v i s i o n of t h e plumbing employees a t t h e s i t e , arid n o t upon a f i n d i n g of Tagyart s n e g l i g e n c e . Thus, t h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n c a n n o t form the basis of a c l a i m f o r n e g l i g e n c e a g a i n s t T a g g a r t . I n t h e absencic of any proof t h a t either t h i r d - p a r t y d e f e n d a n t w a s n e g l i g e n t , t h a t . part of H C C s motion which s e e k s summary judgment on i t s claim f o r c o n t r i b u t i o n a g a i n s t Taggart i s d e n i e d . For t h e same r e a s o n , t h a t HCC h a s n o t proven e i t h e r t h a t . i L was n o t n e g l i g e n t , o r t h a t Tayyar-t was n e g l i g e n t . i n c a u s i n g p1airiti.f f s a c c i d e n t , t h a t . p a r t of HCC s m o t i o n whic:h seeks sutnrnauy j udyrnerit on i t s common-law iiidemiiif i c a t i o r i c l a i m a g a i n s t Taggart i s denied. N o i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e r e w a s any c o n t r a c t between HCC and T a g g a r t 1-iaa been shown. T h c r e f o r e , that p a r t of HCC s motion wl-ii.ch s e e k s c o n t r a c t - u a l i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n a g a i n s t T a g g a r t i s denied. Because t h e r e has been no showing of any c o n t r a c t bet-ween HCC arid T a g g a r t , t h a t p a r t of HCC s motion which seeks breach of c o n t r a c t r e l i e f a g a i n s t T a y g a r t i s den.i.ed. 111 s u m , HCC s motion i s d e n i e d . CONCLUSION 13 [* 15 ] Accordingly, i t i s ORDERED t h a t thc part of t h e motion of d e f e n d a n t s ¬ 3 0 - v i s Lend Lease I n c . and Yeshiva U n i v e r s i t y 002) (motion sequence number for summary judgment d i s m i s s i n g t h e complaint i s granted w i t h . r-espec:t t o p l a j . n t i f f ' 5 5 2 0 0 and 241 (E) Y common-law n e g l i g e n c e and Labor Law c1.airrIsl b u t i s denied w i t h respect. t o p l a i i - i t j . . f f ' s Labor Law § 240 (1) c l a i m ; arid i t i s f u r t h e r ORDERED that the parl; of d e f e n d a n t s Bovis Lend Lease I n c . and Yeshiva U n i v e r s i t y ' s motion (motion sequence number 002) which s e e k s summary judgment on t h e i r common-law i n d e m i i f i c a t i o n c l a i m s a g a i n s t , t h i r d - p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s Heneghan C o n t r a c t i n g Cor-p. arid T a g g a r t A s s o c i a t e s Corp. lis g r a n t e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o 'Taggart A s s o c i a t e s Cor-p.,b u t i s d e n i e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o Heneghan C o n t r a c t i n g Corp. ; and i t i s further ORIIEKE13 that t h e p a r t of d e f e n d a n t s Bovis Lend Lease I n c . a n d Yeshiva U n i v e r s i t y ' s motion (motion sequence number 0 0 % ) which s e e k s summary j udyment c t h e i r corit r a c t uci1 i ridernrii f i ca t i o n m . c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h i r d - p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s Heneghan C o n t r a c t i n g Corp. and Taqgart A s s o c i a t e s Cor-p. i s gr-ant-ed t o t h e e x t e n t that the Bovis Lend Lease Iric - /Heneyhan C o n t r a c t i n g Corp . arid Rovis Lend Lease I n c . /l'aqjgart Associat-es Corp. s u b c o n t r a c t s p r o v i d e f o r Heneghan C o n t r a c t . i n g C o r p . and Taygar-t A s s o c i a t e s Corp,' s p a r t i a l . i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n ot d e f e n d a n t s , and i s o t h e r w i s e d e n i e d ; and i t i s f u r t.h e r 14 [* 16 ] ORDERED t h a t plaintiff's motion (motion sequence number 0 0 3 ) is g r a n t e d t o t h e extent- t h a t par-t.ial summary judgment: on t h e i s s u e of d e f e n d a n t s ' 1 i a b i . l i t y u n d e r L a b o r L a w 5 240 (1) is ijrarit,ed, an.d t h e motion is otherwise derii-cd; arid it, i s further QF.'DEP,ED t h a t Hcneghan Contracting C o r p . ' ~ motion f o r sumniary jutlgmer-it. (iriotion sequence number 001) is denied. ENTER : 15

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.