Giacola v Salt Constr. Corp.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Giacola v Salt Constr. Corp. 2011 NY Slip Op 33559(U) December 19, 2011 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 08-13902 Judge: Daniel Martin 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. [* 1] COPY INDEX No. ~IIIJII:I HlRi,l URDER CAL No. 08·13902 11·008680'1' SUPREME COURT· STATE OF NEW YORK IAS. PART 9 . SUFFOLK COUNTY PRESENT: floo. DANIEL M MARTIN Justice of Ill,,; Supreme COLIrt MO'fJON DATI::: s- j 6- j 1 liiOO:)) 9- Ll-l [ (ffO(J4-)_ MOTION DATE AD.! DATE Mol. Seq. It 002 - MD /+ 003 - XMotD I/-O()4 - XMG Second Third-Party X Defendant. VINCENT (dACOLA, as administrator for the estale ofJU/\N CARLOS SALINAS, ......... X Plaintiff - againstSALT CONSTRUCTION CORP. aod SILVERLINING WOOllWORKIN(" INC, ALAN R. CHORNE, ESQ Attorney tor PJallltiff 150 Broadway, 14th I"'loor New York, NCVl York 10038 Defendant. MAZZARA & SMALL. PC Attorney for Sd vcrl ITllllg \V oodworking 800 Veterans Memonal Highway Hauppauge, Nc\v York 11788 X S/\LT CONSTRUCTION CORP., Third-Party Plaintiff, KRAL, CLERKIN, REDMOND, PERRY & VAN ETTEN, LLP Attorney for Salt Construction - aga1l1st- 538 Broadhoijow Road MclvJlle, Ney\~York I 1747 FRAME TO EINISH. INC, Thlrd-l)arty RYAN. Defenlbnt. KENNY SH)'.LTON LlPT;\I< NOW;\I<. LLP Attonl~y for Fnlll1C to Finish '\ SII.VI'RLINING WOODWORKING. INC.. Second ThIrd-Party Plaillllff 14 Lafayette AveIllIC_.510 r~(lild Bouicvard Buthdo, New York 142m MINTZER. Attorney - agclll1st- 11K. 17 West John Street, Suite 21)() Hicksville, I·RAMF TO FINISH. INC.. SAROWIT/./TRIS. for (j-I, New York 11001 I'EDVA [* 2] .x SALT CONSTRUCTION CORP., Third Third-Pcll1Y Plaintiff ...against U-L INC, Third Thll"d-PaflY Defendant. .x (i-LINe. Fourth Third-Pal1y Plaintiff, - agatllSI - ANIHAL MOTA, hHII·tl1 Third-P~lrty Defendant. n;ud Ull tllest: Jl)uli()ll~ 1(\1' lIIllI\I'lI'\:jud\..'IlK'lll. S N('lic:c: "r M"IHlIli 1 - 1') . NOll<:c ol"C'mss Molion (Uln) ;lIld SUpptlrlll11; pajleTS 211- .::-1: Notice: ol"Crllss Ivlo1i 1l1(O1!41and supponing pn])...:rs 2() - 43: Answc:rill!:!, /\n1(b\'il~ ilnd sUjlportillg P"IKI"S -14 - 5(, . ' Rc'plyillg Arlid:IVils ,111<.1 suppurling papers 57 - 6:-; : CJlhC:f _: ("",I ,InC, I"", ill,;-cotm"-.I ;" "l'PI',1I t ,md-C"rro:;cd to li,e IIp(ll1 Ill<': 1\)II(\lVill~ P;i1Kr., J1L1l1lhc:rc:d to ~ 1 ()["tkr In Silow (.'alls~' (1)()2)<lnd suppurlJl1;; pap<:I's 11Tt1tinn) it I.'. ORD/:'RI:'J) llHit the molion (002) of the dcfcndaill/thircl-p<lrty pl<lintirJlthird third-p:n-IY pl~\ln\lfT S~dt ('onstruction Corp. is denied 10 the extent that it seeks summary judgment 11lits f~\vor and ag~lillS1 111lI'd Ilmd-party dcJl:ntlant (j- I_ Inc. 011its claim for contractual ind~l11nification_ :lI1d il is further ORDl:-Rl:'[) lhat the cross Illotion (003) of the plaintiff is gralllcd to the cxtcnt thai II scd,s partial sUIl11lwry judgmcnt on the issue of liability of the defendant Salt ConstTuction Coq), pursualH In Labor Law 1-W and 241. is demed_ at thIS tlfllC. on the issue of liability offhc defl:ndal1\ SJlvcrllllillg Woodworking. Jnl'. pursuant to Llbor Law §§ 240 and 241: and, is denied on the issue of liability ur ddi..'ndant Silverlining Woodworking, Jne- pursuant to common law negligem:e and Labor Law ~1()(): and. is denied. at this time, on the Issue ofhability ofddcndant Salt Construction COIl1. pursualll to ** [* 3] Cil<lColav Salt lmk,\ No, 08~13l)02 COillllllHl law negilgcnce and Labor Lel'vl/~200;,md It is further ORDERED that the cross motlon (004) by delcndant!second thIrd-party plalntifrSilverllTlIilg vl/oodwork:lllg, lnl'. IS granted to the extent that It seeks Slll11111,lry Judgmcnt III its favor ag,lIns\" thndp;lrly de1'elllbnt!secolld thircl~p<l11ydefcndant Frame to Finish, Inc. for common-Jaw l11cklllllJlicall\Hl. The pl,lll1l1lrs decedent I'd I approxilnately 13 lCet to hlS death wilde ill' \vas wlJl"kill!;',Oil tile e,\j!,IIlSIOIl ,Illtl n~llovalioll ora home loc,lted on Sheller Island, New York 011November 2U, 21)07 Till· [lull-parly hOllleownlT, Reiner Schoenbach, ret,llllcc! defenclallt Snit COllstrLlctiun COql. (,c~:<lll")tu ,IL·1 :[S tile gencr,l! conlr,ldor!lllanager Oil the ten million dol I,ll" project ("the SellOcnhach project"), pur:->lI:ll'l1 lu ,Ill II[·aI agreement. S,r1t all eges that 1t contracted wi tll defendanUsecond ellIf(j-parLy pIa Intll'l" Sll verlill i11 g Wuociworking, Inc. ("Silverlining") to perform the general carpentry' \Vork on the project, although Sllwrlillll'lg disputes this allegation. Salt alleges that it orally contracted with time! third-p,lriy ck'll:mLllll C)-I, Inc. ("(j-I ") to act as a '~Iob super", to keep the owner" appnllscd urille develoj)lllClllS \1[1 lile Scl1uenbach proJecl, and to monItor Job site safety. Tbird-part'y de!enchll1t!second tlmd-p,lrlY defendant Frame to Fl1l1sh, Inc. ("Frame to FilllSh") \Vas a sub-contractor eng,lgee! in carpenll'y work;)t the Sl·hoenbach projcl't at the time ol'the decedent's bll. The decedent', an employee uf Fr,II111'lu FInish, had bc.'en on a scaffold "slstenng" bcams under the "i1oating" house ,It the time uflhe ,lccidC[li [1 IS Ulldlsputed that the decedent \vas 110tprotected by any safety deVIces 10 prevent hIS lidl. The plallltJtTcol1lmenced this action fix pelvmal inJurics and wrongful death agal1lst the de ICndan IS a~sertlllg causes of action 10 recover damages 1'01',ll tel" a Ji(/, v'lOlati ons 0 r LaboI"'l,~aw ~~ 2()(). i 240. and 241, and comJnon-law negligence. Salt asserted cross clalllls agalll~t Sdver[Jlllng for COlllI11UIllaw Illdcl1l11ificauon. contractual IndemnIfication, and hlllure to procure I11SUr~II1CC Silverlllllllg ,ISSl'l"[L't1 cruss CI,1I111S '1.~:wil1S1 1'01' Salt eomlllun-law indcll1lllfic,ltloll, contr'letliaillldclllllil'iC.ltIOIl. ,Ind lililurc t,l prunlrc InSUI'~l11Cl'. Salt commcnced a thJrd-party ,ICtI011against Frame to FinIsh for c0l111l1on-l<l\valld contraclllallndCllllllficatlOn ,1lld contribution, and for t"ilJillreto procure lllsuranec. Silvcrlining thCll C()IllllKneed ,1second third-party act10n agaillst Frame 10 Finish for contnbutloll, C01l1ll1011-law,)l1(j cOlltr,lClual illc!eIl11l1Iicatioll, and for t~lilure 10 procure lllsurance, Framc to FI11lsh asscrted cross claims agalilst Salt and Silveriln1l1g for cOlltnbutloll and Indemndication Salt thell commenced a time! thirclp:lrty p["oeccc!ing <lg,llnst (i-I for common-law and cuntractuai contnbutioll ,llld indelllrllf[c.ltinn and le)[· iilliurc III Plw:,u['e IllS11l"<lIlCe. asserted cross claims ,lgail1S1Sale Silverlillillg, and Fr<llllt' 10 hnlsh G-l illr CLHlllllLH1-law contractualcontnbution and ul1d indemniJication and 1·{Jr 21ilurc10 procure tIlSU[".lI[L·L·. 1 1~IIl~dly.C;-I cOllllllt'nccd ,I tl)unll lhird-p~lnY action agalllsl fourth third-pany dci'cncbnt Anlbal Mpla iili· L't.llllIllOIl-lilW ,md Cl,mtraclua! contribution and lIldelllnilicanolJ. (Issue W,IS[lOt.l01l1cd III tht' I(llirtil third-partyactioll.) S,lll now moves for sUlllmary Judgmcnt dlrcctlng G-I to defend and Indcmllll'y II pursuant to its contmct dated December 20, 2006. Plall1tiff cross-moves for partial sllll1llwry judgment Ull allls:.;UCS ()r Il,lbility ,1g,IlT1St cfendants Salt ,llld Sliverlining. Silverli111ng cross-moves Ie)]" slIllllll,lry judgment I~)[" d I'ull :ll1d L·olllpicte indemnll'icatioll or, in the ,lltcrnatlvc, a conditIonal order of Indenmil'lcatlOll ~lg~l[llSt Fn[ll1c to Finish In support of lIs motIon Salt prOVIdes, infer o/w. copies of the p!e:ldlllgS, a hold Ilannlcss agrl'cillenl bet \\'\;'cn 3d It ,11ld(i- 1 dated December 20, 2006, 1lilS Igned ccrti IIcd cop ICSof C,\illTlll,ll'l()Il i [* 4] (ji:lcula v Salt 111l.le.'\ No. 08-13902 P,lgC 4 before trial transcripts or Salt by Robert Plumb and (J~ by Donald Grandone, and <Icopy of an :dlilbvll I of Donald Grandone (Pre.'>ldcnt or Ci- I) dated December 15,2009. In support or Its crOSS-lllotlon p la Illtl ITsubmi ts, /111 cr a/ ia, ullsi gncd ccrti fied copi es of exanunation before t rial transcrl pts ()r non -p~lny (}-;waldo Sallll<l and Frame to Finlsh by Cluy Sarubbi, and police photographs. Finally, ill support OI·ll.~ c russ motion S Ji vcrl 111 ing subm ItS, illter ({lia. signed cOpies of cxamlJla non bcfclrc tn a I t["<lllsert ts [)f' p Frame to Finish by Cluy Sarubbi, SllverlJlling by E(hvard Renner, and (i-I by Donald (jrandonc, <lei cll w as the unsigned copy of the Salt (;xam1l1ation before trial transcript by Robert Plumb with a lettl't· Indicating ,1 Jililurc to sign and rdUrJl samc could result In its use "as IS". Accordmgly. with the C\CeptlOn of the Salina trunscnpt, ,lll of the lranscnpts submitted are in ,ldl11lSSlblc Corm. Rolx'rt Plumb, the president and sole shar~holder of Salt, tesTi lied dunng his c>;~lmillalioll hcfol-L' tl-i;lI lh:ll hc had entered mIll a tell lTullion dollar oral contr3ct \vllh Reiller Scilncnbdch III ur abllut M;[j 2(J07 to rcnovate a house 011Shelter Island. The renovation lllvolved tearing OLitthe C\ISlll1g l~)llnd,dio!l. Jacking up the c.\hting house. crcatlllg a new foundation, and t'cbudchng a new house ,Iround the old one PILlmb slated thaI Salt contraucd with other contractors and that Silvcrlilllng was '"going 10 be dCling the carpclltry. the general carpentry" and that Salt did Ilot have a contr<lCl With Ft',Hnc to 1·'ltliSh I Ie Illalntalns that I~d Renncr ofSllverlllllng signL:d a contract and retlll"lll':d It to him In connection \Villl the carpentry work it was to do (although a copy of same has not been supplied in conllection with any oCtllL'motlons). Plumb stated, and Renner, who testlJied on behalrofSilverllllHlg agrccd, that Salt rl'L"L:lvcdmvoices for carpentry work performed at the Sehoenhaeh project from Sllvcrlllllllg \vhlch sl;lted the Il<lJnes nl'workers, the hours worked, the work performed, and the amount due Plumb avcn:.'LI thaI he ""understood [that hel was dealmg with Sdverlinlllg Woodworklllg, who had engaged Fr,une III FlI1tsh" to work at the Shcoenbach project. He testij~ed that neIther he nor Salt provided ladders. scaffolding, or hdl prevention devices at the work site, but theH tlley (lid prOVide Illateri,lis I-J-tlillwl1lcll rallings could be constructed. Although be mumtamcd rhat Salt was the construction manager, as opposcd to the general contractor on the Job, Salt was referenced as the eOlllractor on the V,lriOllS bUlldll1g permits required for the Schoenbach project and Salt indicated to Remer SdHlcl1b~H.:hlli:ll II \vould be overseeing the \vork and be responsible for the work. Plumb dealt directly With San,lbbl. or Fr~lnle to f"inish, ll'<1llltime to time at the .lob site. He would discuss structural is::;ucs with him :llld illc!IC,ltc "huw we're going to do thiS or that." Plull1b averl"ed that Saltlmed Ci-l to oversee safety at the Job site. Hc s[";lted tilClt S:lit ;llld (1-1 L'tlt'l'nxl into an oral cuntract for same III or about M,lY 2007. and that Sail' dnd (;-1 had en[ered Il1to ~I written hold harmle:;s agreement for their ongoing IxoJccts on December 20, 200() Plumh as~encd tlw Ci-I W~IS be :1liaison I~JrSalt and the vanulis trades and suppliers, was to take plclun:s ~lnd to keL'p IilL' to homeowner, who lived III Ciermany, appnsed of the renov,lllons and COllstnll'tlon, and W~lSto 1ll0nllnt" Job site sal'..:'ly, ThL:re was no written contract l1lemorlilli/ing these duties or responsihilities, exccp' t(J tile l'.\tenl' thM they lllay h,lVe appenred on an illVolce. Plumb did slate that on OCl"HSllmIll' would pcrsllnally direct Mota, an employee orC;-I, ifhc observed whnt he believed to be an llllS;lk cOllcilillll1 ~11 the Job Sill'. Fdward Renner, the sole sh,lreholdel- and pn:eiidcnt orSilverlllllllg, Ilot lmed to perform work on the Schoenbach project at ;IllY time, and that evcr performed any work thereat pnnr to plamtitrs decedent's accidental generated InVOICes for Frame to Flilish as "a way of getting a commission 1'csLJ!ied that Stlvcrllnillg 1V,1\ ncither It nur its employees hdl Renner contcnded th,1t Ilc ;.lSsort 01' like ,I tinder':; lee [* 5] (jlacola v Salt Il\Ckx No. 08-13902 Page 5 lype thing." Silverllning did not provide scaffolding, ladders, manlilrs, 11OlstS,l~lll-protectlllll devicl;s, I'j-allllng, or platforms <.ltthe Schoenbach project. Hovv'ever, Renner admitted thatlle was present at till; Sclloenbach pruJeCl before the carpentry work started and alter the buildll1g was "Ill thc all'" lor a IllCCllllg with Plumb and Sarubbi Uh1111Frame to FlIllSh), Renner insists tllac Silverlll1illg received a ten percent commission for the bilhng work 1l did for [:rame to Finish and that It wasn't until after the ~ll;cidcnt that Silverlining billed Salt for work It had clone in connection with tll1lC spent downloadmg sall:ty material. Renner admitted drawing up a proposal and hand dehverJl1g it to Salt in connectloll with tile carpentry work, but didn't recall IllS Signing It or recel\'l11g It back from SaIL He considered the .JOh Sriverlllllng (lJd to be "secretarial work, 110tcontl"acting work," Guy S,lrubbi, the president of Frame to 1'1111:3h, testi tIed at an CXallllJ1atlon before tnaltlwt Frame tu rinish perfonned carpentry work at tbe Schoenbacb project. He admitted that be person(lily pcrfi.Hllled work and labor at the site and that Frame to Finish supplied ninety percent of the scafli.)ld1l1g equipment at the site, as well as the tools used by the carpenters (when they werell'tuslIlg their o\-vn tools.) Sarubbi ll1dicated that Frame to Finish started on the projecl with L<:d Renner from Sdverlll1lng, !hat b~lslcally Silvcrlllling got Framc to Finish the job (which was the reason Frame to Fll1lsh bJlJcd Srlverlinllig which 111 llIrn billed Salt fi.Jrthe work perJormed). Frame to Flllish never received illstHIClIUI1SjJ'onl Ed Renller or Sliverlll1l1lg regardmg the Schocnb~lch Job, Bob Plumb iJ'nll1 Salt ,liould advise SarLibbi as 10 ,vilat \-vas to be donc, although Ed Renncr did come by the .lob i'i-om timc to 1'1I11C ~lIldtalk aboul thll1gs, but not on il routille basis. Sarubbi testlf'icd that Silverlining (bel not glVC out ,vurk assignments, tell Fnlme to Finish \vhal or how to do things at the Sehoenbach proyxt llr proVide toois. equipmcnt, or materials. Sarubbi consldered ["vlota(f'i-om (j-I) to be a go between, "the guy. the trallcr boy, that's who he IS, the guy wllo docs nothll1g, but watches over everythmg. I guess." Finally, the testimony of Donald Grandone, the liresldent of G-l , revcaled thaI ()ranclune hdl.l slglll.'d ,1 hnld harmless agreement v-lith Saltm December 01'1006. Grandonc understood tillS to b,-' for carpL'lltry work rc:Iating to Ci-I. Granuonc I11dicatcd that Ci- limed Mota to work at the Sciloenbach project :lIld tll,lt he did not eng,lgc hi III to do carpelltry work or to pcrl'(1rI11site sai'et)' activilies. M01:1 was lhe only person engaged by (1-11'0 work at' lhe Schoenbaeh pmject. (irancloill.' stated that he did t1ut go tv thc Job site whde Mota was there, and that he Il1structcd Mota to do whatevcr "Plumb told hi 111 \(1 do." Gwndonc alleges that illS handwritten ,vorkshcet descnbes Mota's work as "job super" and tll,lllhe typewritten lIlV01Ce for the same dates says "Job super and safety" because '"Bob Plumb <lsked me to ,ldd "S,ll'ety' to the HlVOlee for the reasons I said earhcr, !~)rthe Insurance company and for the hOl11cownc['" Gr~lIldonc l1l:tinr~lins that G-I did nor prOVide safety services or a .lob supervisor for the Schoenbdch pn).Iecl' II1Stc,ld, (irCllldone cont"ends r!l,lt its presence was "to dOl'umcnt hourly workers, mind the .!,!'ltc ~lIldbe Plumh's wdtcilciog, cyes and C,lrs Ull thc Job site." The afr'idavll of (jrandonc InliiC,l1ed lil~ll (i-I Il~ldbecn [-etained by Sill! to prOVide site s(lidy and slipervisiun. tllat It rct~lliled Mola ~I",.l1lIlHkpcnl.klll ' eontrClctor to perform those serVices, and that (J- I did 110tmailltain any presence Ull the Job Sitc Surnillary judgment is a (Ii"astic remedy 311dshould only be granted m the absGllct' or~lIlY triable Issues uj' bet (see. Rotu!Ja E¥tmders, II/C. v CCJ'pos, 46 NY2d 223, 4 J3 NYS2d 14lil 0n]; Andre J! Pomeroy. J5 NY2d 361, 362 NYS2d 13 I L 1974]). IT IS well scllied thnllhe pruponcnt nLl sunllllClry j udgll1t'n t Illoti on IIIus! mak c a jJl"illlCi j(/cil! showi ng 0 f Cl11111 t to .1 cmen udglllenl ~lSCl1ll'.lltCI· flaw, 0 tcndcrlng sufl'iclcn1' proof to dClllonstmte the absence oi"any I11HI'crl,lllSSues ol'hlct (AIl'are:,,' Prospc('i JIo.\jJ.. ()8 NY2d ~20, 324, 508 NYS2d 923,925 [1986.1>. Failure te) make such a shuwing requln:s:\ [* 6] (ji;lcub v Salt Indcx No. 08-13902 P,lg~ 6 (!cnl,lI u f the monon, regardless of the sufficIency of the 0pposlllg papers { Willegrad II /\/ell' York VI/h'. fUed. Or., (j4 N'nd 851,853,487 NYS2d 316, 31 S [1985])_ Furtiler, the credibility of the parties IS Iwt all aplll"Upnale considcratioll for the Court (S.l. Cal'e!ill Assoo'., /I1C. Ii Globe lliff;. Corp., 34 NY2d 3.18,357 NYS2d 478['1974]), and all competcnt evidence must be viewcd 111 llgln tll()sl I:wurabk III ,1 t'lle party opposing summary Judgment (Benincasa v Garru!J!Jo, 141 AD2d 636, 637, 520 NYS2d 7()7,i091:2d Dept I()SXJ). Oncc thIS showing by tbe movanl has been established, till' burden silliis tn thi.' P,lrty opposing the sUlllmary judgmcnt motion to produce eVlc1ence sufl'ielcntlo establIsh lhe eXlstellce 0 I"a Illatenal issuc of hct (see ALvarez II Prospect llo,\p., slIjJm). Turning first t·o the plaintiffs calise of action seeking to recover damages pursuant to Llbor Ll IV ~ 240 (1 ), thIS provlslOll Imposes a nondelegable duty upon OiNners, contractors, and theIr agents to "furnish or erect or cause to be furnished or erected safety devices which shall be so conslrucled, pL.lc<':'il and operated as to gn'('" proper protection" (see, AurieJJlllIa v Biltmore Theatre, LLC., 82 AD3d I, () 17 NYS2d 130 11 sl Dept 20 11J; Martinez v Asllley Apts Co. LLC, 80 AD3d 734, <)15 NYS2d 620 pd ])epl 2()11]), Allllwllt:r, contractor or agent \V11O breaches this duty lllay be held liable 111 c1<.llllagCs ;;Q,II'dlL'ss ~ . - n of wilt'iher 11had actually exercised any superviSion or control over the work (Ross v Curtis-Palmer lfydro~Elec. Co., g 1 NY2d 494,601 NYS2d 49 [1993]). In order to prcyailupon a Chll111 pursuanr 10 Labor Law ~ 240 (1), a plaintiff must establish th,lt the statute was vlOlated and that thIS Violation \V,IS ,I pl"ox1l1wte cause of his InJunes (see, Bland I' Mal/ocheriall, 66 NY2d 452, 497 NYS2d kgO 1905]: Sprague \' Peckham Materials Corp., 240 AD2d 3<J2, 658 NYS2d 97 [2d Dept 1997J: see (lIs!), - . r Martille:; l! Ashh'Y /Ipts Co., SIIIJI"(I: RtlJJlSeJlI' Leoll D. Del}//alteis Coltstr. Corp., 7() A D3d nu, \)12 NYS2d ()54 ]2d Dept 20101; Balzer" ('it)' (~llVell' York, 61 AD3d 706, 877 NYS2d 4.15 12d Depr 2009Jj It is not ,1defense to liability pursuant to Labor Law S 240 (1) th,lt tht' pl<11111111"" l:lUll clll1tnbuted 10 the accident, unless it can be said that the plalntlffs conduct \V,lSthc "llie pro.'\illlate C~ILlSt' of the ,Kclcknt as n maHer of la\v (see, Balzer I' Ci(1'of Nell' York, .wpm; see ({Isu, Gallagher v Nell' }fork Post, 14 NY3c183, 896 NYS2d 732 [20J(r]; Blake v}'ieighbor1lOot/ J-/OllS. Servs. oliV.Y. Ci(l', I NYJd 2~0, 290-291, 771 NYS2d 4S4 [2003]), 'Illc eVIdence subillitted by the p!amtiffon the motion established allnlllojocic enlitlemenl II) sllllllmrY.llldglll(,:111 on the Issue of defendant Salt's liability pursuant to Llbor La\v ~ 240 (I). 1\t ll1e outset. and c()1Hrary 10 the defcndant Salt's contentions, the eVIdence submltted deillullstr~ltes that· S~dl \vas ~l)any rcspon"iblc' for compliallce with the statutory mandate of I.abor L<'I\V 240 (I). III tillS I ~ rcg,lrd, it IS undisputed that Labor Law 0 240 (I) is applicable to Salt by vIrtue of it·s role as "genC'rnl eonu"actor" at the subject work sitC'. The eVlClence submitted clid not conclusively eS«lblisllthal (ill' s(aIUIt' IS applrc,lblc to Silverlllling by virtue ofilS positlOlJ as an "agent" of the general contractu 1-. ¢ 'i\ IXIIllC cUlllractor lmed for a spc:citic proJcct is subject to llabrllty uncleI' Labor Law 240 as ,1 sratultWv' ,lgCllt urtilc o\Vllc:r nr gCl1L'raleontrnctor only Ifit has been delegated the \vol'i" 111 \\'hich pl'lInl1IT\\I:1.~ cn~,lgcd ,It ihe limc nrlllS inJUl)', and IS therefore responSIble 1'01'the work giving risc to tile dutlCS n.:I\:ITed tu 111 ,llld llnposed by 1.1ll' statute]" (NaslIro I' PI Assoc., 49 A])3d i)29, i)5S NYS2d J 75 12d I DCPl 200S']; Coqlle I' Wilt(flower Estates Del\,:3 I AD3d 484, 488, S 18 NYS2d :S4(1)d Dept 20UCJI;S"l', Russin \' Louis N. Picciauo & SOli, 54 NY2d 31 L 318, 445 NYS2d 127 [19S 1]: c'j.',flillo v lrvillg{o/l UnioJl Free School Dist., 43 AD3d 1130, S43 NYS2d 133 [2d Dept 2007]). * In thiS casc, although Salt contends that It had a contract with Silverlllling, and Silvcrlinlllg [* 7] GI,lCOL! 1/ Salt Indcx No. 08-13902 Page 7 adllllts that it 111ayhave executed a proposal, no contract has been provided III support ofthc \Vllhll1 motion \vhich would show that Salt' expressly delegated tbe perfonmmce of the carpentry \vDrk (specilil-·ully the '·sistenng of beams") ,lnd the responsiblilty "to supervise and direct" SLIChwork to SilvL:rlllllllg. Sdverl1l1ing maintains that it was not hired to work, nor did It actLlull:-l \VOI1 011 the Sclwcnb,lch project at any point, and that any work pe['forrned in COlll1ccuon with th..:;SClltlCnh<lch I,roject was In the line ol'''secretarlCll'' work and not "contract" \vork. It IS clear that SJlverlll1\ng n::ccn'cd bills from F:ral1le to FilllSh for Its carpentry work done at the Schoenbach pro.Jcct and paid Frame t·o FIlllsh, wilde bdll11g Salt on Silverhnmg statIonary for such work (after lllereasing the amOlll1t due by approximately ten per cent). There is a question of bet as to whether SJiverlJlllllg W~IS the pl"lIlK' contr,lctor for the c,lrpentry work on the project. If a b1ctual IlndlOg is made that Silvcrlilling was the gel 1\:,n1 carpentry contractor whIch delegated the authority to supervise Clndcontrol the parill-'ular Wlll·),; I 111 \v!llch Lhc decedent \vas engaged (\1the time oft!le incident, It will be liable under Llbor Luw ~ 1411 (I) :1'>;1statutory agent of the general eontr8ctor (see, Weber I' Baccarat, /IIC., 70 AD.3d 4S7, Sl)6 NYS1d 1211'1 Dept 2010];1/lga I' EBS 1\( Hills, 69 AD3d 568, 893 NYS2d 5621.2d Dept 2()I()j, Pacheco l' Kelt' Gardeu Hills Apt. Owners, 73 /\D3d 578, 906 NYS2d 3 [I st Dcpt 201 OJ, Tomyuk. l' Jllllclietd Assoc., 57 AD.3d 518, 868 NYS2d 731 [2d Dept 2008]; see aiso, Kill11etis II Creative Pool & Spa. 741\J)3d 1289,904 NYS2d 495 L2d Dcpt 2010.1; Domino I' Professiollal COl/sulting, II1C., 57 i\lJ.3d 713, 869 NYS2d 224 [2d Dept 2008]). Moreover, "[olnce an entity becomes an agent under till' L.abur L;rw it cannOl escape Iiabrlity to an lllJured plaintltlby delegating the work 10 another clltay" (McGlYIIII I' Brooklyn Hmp.-Caledollialf HO!lp., 209 AD2d 486, 619 NYS2d 541.2d Dept 19941; sec, T01l1Yuk. I-'.Il1l1ejield .-:Issoc., sl/pm; NasurrJ v PI Assoc., supra). Tbus, IfSilverlinl1lg is ftllll1d to be thl' geller,d C,ll"pentry contractor, it will remain statutorily liable despite the bct thar Ii' had contracted tile carpentry \vork 111 which the decedent was engaged at the time of the incldelll to I·rarne to Flllish The evidence submitted further establishes that the decedent was subjected to an CkV,l\IOll-rel,Hcd risJ-: whlie workmg, and that the t~lillire to prOVide hlill WIth adequate snl'ety dcvll"c;; \V,ISa prllxlmilte cause of his lll.lunes and death (see, Balzer I' Ci~v oj'iVt!w York, s/ipm: D7.ieralll' 18()(j BOSTOII Rd., 15 AD3d 336, 808 NYS2d 36 pst Dept 2006]). [n tillS regard, It IS undlsputcd that <ltthe timc of his I::lil the decedent was Worklllg at a height ofapprOxlllwtely 13 fee.t without- the prot("ctl\JIlI\!" any safcty deVIce. Contrary to the defendants' contentions, thc cvidcnce submitted docs IlOt r~\Ise an Issue of bId as to 'vvhether the decedent's own negligence was the sole proxlmatc cause OrhlS IllJLLl"lCS :I\ld dc'll!l. The 1~lill.lrcto use available safety equipment will not· be c!t:elllc,(!the sole prnXll1lare CllIS," \)1' ;1 wurkcr's Injuries unless there were adequate sa!cty devlces ;wadabk, the worker kncw both that IIll'Y were available and that he was ..:;xpected to use them, and that he chose for 110good reason not to do so York Post, supra; Auriemma v Biltmore Theatre, slIpm: Orth. v 164 Atl. /I J!('. , 77 AD.ld :S07, 909 NYS2d 745 r2d Dept 20 I0"1;Ritzer v 6 E. 43rd St. Corp., 57 AD3d 4 I2, S71 N'r"S1d (see, Gal/agher Ii Nell' 2() II SI Dept:2 008 I). Assumlllg wgllenc/o that the ev I(!ence SLi iltec! establ ished that adcq 1I,11l' bm s:ll·l:ty deVices were av,lr!able <11 job SIlt', the record is nonetheless deVOid or' any ("Vidence that the (leCCLICIlI the knew that he was expected to use such safely (levlces and that he chose !tJr no good rC<lSOll ut to do Sl, n (Sl.\" TOlllI/wra I' Fernicola, 80 AD3d 470, 914 NYS2d 161 [1st Dept 201 I:J; l11urray v Arrs Ctr. & TheaTer oj'Schellecrady, 77 I\D3d I 155, <) I0 NYS2d 187 [3d Dept 20 I0]; sve (I/so, (J/{{f11l1l1l v ('1/('11' .\'prout PreshyT. Cllflr(:!J (~j'N. Y., 33 ADJd 758, 822 NYS2d 635 [1d Dept 200().I; 1140lliuszlw I' O/(/tlw/// Green, 24 f\D3d 638, 808 NYS2d 696 [2d Dept 2005]). r3a.~l-·d ullthe fo[·cgoing, thc motIon by the plamtiffis grantecllo the l'.\tcnl th.!lll seeks partul [* 8] Ciill.:.'olav Silll Indc:\ No. ()8-IJ902 Page' 8 sUIllIl1,lry.IUdgllle~llton the issue of the defendant Salt's liability under Labor Law ~ 24U (1) clnd IS den lcd, at IbIs t'llllC as to the defendant Silverlilling. \1'/lth respect to the plalnti ff's cause of action to recover damages pursuant tu Labor La'>''! ~ 241. such prOVIsIon requIres owners and general contractors 10 "provIde reasonable and adequate protection and S,lfety" for workers and to comply with the specific safety rules and regulations promulgiltcd by lhc CUll1ll1lssiollcr of the Department of Labor (Rizzuto )' L.A. Wellger COlltr. Co., 91 NY2d 343, 34X, ()in NYS2d Sl() 119l)S]; Forse/llIcrvJucca Co., 63 AD3d 996, 883 NYS2d63 [2d Dept 20091 Om-Ell /.ill J' JJo~r Family /'v/oflllmellts, 18 /\D3d SOO, 796 NYS2d (i84 [2e1Dept 2005J). 111order to recover damages all a eiluse of actioll alleging a VIolation of Labor Law 241, a plall1uff Illust establ ish the violatIon oran Industnal Code prOVISIon \\'hlch sets ['(xth specific safety st,llldards (,'we, Rhwto Ii L.A. * Wenger COf/tr. Co., ,\'1I/)r(l; Ross Ii Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Ela. Co., supra; J-fricus v Aurora COfl1!",)'., v l'v'eJl! York Cifcv School CousTr . .It uth., IK (I.~ AD3d 1004, 883 NYS2d () 1 [2d Dept 2009J; Fitzgerald AD3d S07, 808, 79() NYS2d 694 [2d Dep! 2005]). The rule or regulation alleged to havc been bre;lChed must be a specific, positive command and must be applicable to the facts of the case (sf'e, Forse/Iller I' .!lIc('a Co., SliPI'({; CUII-/;,:lI Lill v J-Io~vFamily /'v/olll/lllellts, sUjJm). Here, Ihe pl;lll1t JtT alkges that the defendants violated the regulatit))ls IlHllld al 12 i\IYCRR ~ 2."\ The regulations set fllrlh at 12 NYCRR 23-5 1(c)(2), (e)( I), (h), and (j), at 23-1.15, ;lnd at 2]-1 ] () ,<;('1 st;ll1c!arc!s ror scaj'f<'Jids, safety railll1gs, and safety belts, harnesses, tail lines and iJfelllll.'s. It IS e'!car tll::l thc scaffold fl·Olll whIch plall1titfs decedent fell was not braced or placed in accordance with sections (c)(2) und (el( I) of 12 NYCRR 23-5.1. Salt or Its subcontractors neither installed the safety millngs requIred by 12 NyeRR 23-1.15 nor provided enough nor instructed employees ill the Lise or the s,l1;;ly belts required by 23 NYCRR 23-1.16. /\ccordlllgly, the branch of the plaintiffs motion whIch seeks summary Judgl'nent 011tile issuc (ii' dcfendam Salt's liability pursuant to Labor La\\'" ~ 241 (6) IS granted, and IS cle.llie~d at this tllllC, Oll tilc .. issue ol'defendant Siiverllning's ltability since there is a question off:lct as to whether Sllverlll1ing \V~iS all ,1gCllt or primc contractor of Salt. With l-espcct to the Labol' L1\v ~ 200 and common-law negligcncc causes or :lCtIOIl, Llbor LI\V ~200 111en:lycodifies the coml1lon-law duty imposed upon an owner or general l'ontractor to pn'Jvlde COllstructlon site workers with a safe place to work (see, Rizwto v L.A. Wenger COlliI'. Co., ,\111)1"1I ,II 3-"i2: G'asques I' SUITe (~l.!VeJIIYor/l., 59 /\D3d 666,873 NYS2cl 717 j.2d Dcpt 20091~ Dooley v Pecrlcss Importers, 42 AD3d 199,837 NYS2d 720 [2cl Dc))t 2007l) The aCCIdent here stems IlOt I"nHn~l d<lllgcrolis cOlldlllOll Oil tile prelllis(:s, but i'rom the manner in which thc work: was bClng perl'()I"lllul. Til be held lJablc under Labor Law ~ 200 and for common-law negligence when lhl' l1Ktllod and 111;\IIl1e']' lli' the ,vork IS al issue, 1ll1lust be sho'vvil that ·'the party to be charged had the aUlhorlty to supen'lsc 0[' cOlltroilhl: performance of the work" (Ortega JI Puccia, 57 AD3d 54, 61,866 NYS2d 323 [2d DepI 2()OSI~ sec. l'lt/{lIlCUSO )1 MTA N. Y. City Tr., 80 AD3d 577, 914 NYS2d 283 [2e1 De))t 20 I I J; La Veglia l' .)·1. Francis f/o.\jJ., /\D3d 1123,912 NYS2d 611 [2d Depl 20 IOJ; ClWlVd/Ill/)! I' Rodriguez, 57 AD.\d 121. S67 NYS2d In [2e1Dept 2008]~ G'asques JI State (~fNew York, SII!)Ul~ Orellal/a )I f)tilchcr AI'£'. Rldr.'''.. 5S AD3d () 12, X71 NYS2d 352 [2d Dcpt 2009J, Dooley v Peerless ImporTers. slIpra). Genual slIpnvi~ory ,1Lllhorl1Y:It a work site for the purpose of ovcl":::iceing the progre~s or the Ivork and Illspecting the work product is insufficient to impose liabIlity under the statute (see, La Veg/ia I-'SI. n [* 9] Cjlacola v Salt Index No. ()S~I Y)():? Pagc () Frallcis J-/o.,p .I'lipru;Orel/ana v Dutc!ler Ave. Bldrs., .I'/lJ)r(l;)erri v Gilbert Johnson Litters., 14 .. ! ADJd hS 1,790 NYS2d 25 [2d Dept 2005]). The authority to reVH;:Wsafety at the site, ensure compliancc With saCety regulations and contract speCIfications, and to stop work for observed saltty vlOlations is also IllsufTiClt::nt to impose l1abllity (see, Austin .' Consolidated Edisoll, 7~)ADJd (),'l:?,1)13 NYS2d 6X4l2d Depr 2010]; Capolfuo 1,.Iudlau COlltr., 46 AD3d 733, 1)48 NYS2d J4h Ill! Dept 2UOi'I: .McLeod v Corporation (~lPresidillg Bishop (~l Church o.l.leslls Christ ofLatler Day Sts., 41 i\DJd 796, (;39 NYS2d 1M [2d Dept 2007]; Garlow v Chappaqua Cent. School Dist., 38 AD3d 712, 832 NYS2d 627 [2d [jept 2007]; Perri v Gilbert .I01111S011 Enters., SlIjJ/"{{; COIIII)({re, JI(lIlCllSO I' I"'IJA N. V. Ci(F Tr., .I'lIj)l"(/) Rather, it lllust be demollsrrated that the defendant controlled the 1l1c1l1nerll whicll lhc i work \vas performed (s('c, La Veglia I' St. Francis J-/osp., SlIj)j'(I; ct. Rizzuto v L.A. IFeuger Com/'. Co.. Sllj)l"(I~ ooley I' Peerless Importers, supra; Hughes v Tis/mulJI COllstr. Corp., 40 AD3d lOS, 836 D NYS2d 86 list Del't 2007]) Ci- I, and S IIvcr Iin ing, both cstabJ ished a pl"llllujacie enti t lement to s U 111l1ldry udgllltnl J dismissing the plaintllrs causes of action to recover damages for common-law ncgllgcnce c1l1dVI01:,II)I-)11 of Labor Law ~ 200 They established primo/clcie that they did not' control the means or methods by which the decedent performed hlS work (see, GUrtlllg I-' Amal' Retireme1ll Trust, 79 i\D3d 969, () 15 NYS2d 97 1'2d Dept 20 IOJ; La Veglia I'St. Fraucis J-/o.~jJ supra, Rivera v J j Broad S't., 7() AD3d tJ21. .. ()O() NYS2d 333 [2d Dept 2010]; Ramos v PatdlOgue-flIed[ord ,School Di.,'t., 73 ADJd IO](), 006 N YS2d 45 [2ei Dept 2()J 0]; Dooley I' Peerless Importers, SlIpra; Bh!ssillger )' Estee Ltfuda Cos., n I AD2d 343, 707 NYS2d n [1st Dept 2000}). III thiS regard, the evidcnce established tlwt the unly personnel who supervlsed the decedent's worK \",,'ereemployed by the decedent's employer l'r~11l1e to 1~'inl;.;ll (and possibly by Salt), and not (j-I or Silverlining (see, McKee I-' Grl'(ft Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 7.1 AD3d 872, 905 NYS2d 60 I [)d Dcpt 20 I0]: Wade v Atlaflfic CooliJlg Tower Servs .. 56 AIBd :547, ~()7 NYS2d 489 [2d DL:pt 200g], Capolino ~'.Jut/lall COlltr., supm; Hughes I,' Ti.,hlllall ('ollstr. CO/p.. SliP/"({. ohammed~' Islip Foot/ Corp., 24 AD3d 634, g08 NYS2d 3891'2d Ikpt 2005]; COiIlJXII·C. M Fassett I' Wegmans Food /'vlkts., 66 AD3d 1274 .. 888 NYS2d 635 [3d Dept 2()09-]). Accord1l1gly, the plaiutiiT's cross motion is denicd to thc extent that it seeks SUIII 1ll<1I')' Judginl'lll ag,llilst SJiverlll1ing ullthe Issue ofll<lbJlity for violations of Labor Law ~ 200 alld negllgL:nCC, and Ill:' cknlcLL <llthls (lillC, on tilt iSSlli: ofliclbJlllY agalllsr Salt /"or violations OrLlbor L;l\v ~20() ,lI'ld Ilcgll~:vllce SlllCe therc <Lrc questions of fad as (0 whether Salt or Its employees superVised lkL'cciclll'S \,vork In l1ght ofthc detenninatlon that Sdverllning was not negligent, did not have [he autllOl'I(-y to control the Injury-producing work, and thar its only liability to the pla1l1ufflS or may he statutory III 1l,lturc, the cross clalllls agaillst Silverl1l11l1g SCCklllg cOl11l11on-law inckn1l1111catlOn must bc disillisscd (.1'('(', Torres l' LPE Land Dev. & COllst!'., 54 AD3d 668, 863 NYS2c1477 12d Dcpt ]()[)8lIVlid-J 'allt'J" Ofl CO. I' IIlIghes Network Sys., 54 ADJd 394, 1)63 NYS2d 24412d Dept 200SJ; Mar/iCY I' C.F.M.M. OWII('J"S, .I'lIj!f"(/; Dela/wye v Sai"t AI/liS School, 40 ;\[)3d ()79, SJ6 NYS2cl :7.3.112t1 Dept 2()()T]; Jl/o/wli/lII('d I,' Islip Food COl"p.,SlIjJl"{I) J\ckiltionally, III the event Silvcrlll1ll1g IS found to be nn agent or subcontractor llilder Labor Law 240 and 01'241, it established lts entitlement to summary Judgmcllt \1I'Salt ,IlKlll<lhk impOSIng li,lhility [* 10] C11Clcoia Salt v Index No. 01-;-13902 I\lgC I (I over rrallle to Flllish on it,; third-party complaint t()r common-law lIldemni Ikation (see, Cuu/U! v Ci~l' olNe~v York, 45 AJ)Jd 624, 850 NYS2d I J91"2d Dept 2007J). In order to establIsh ,l CI:lIIl1for cOllllllon-law indcmndieation, a parry is reqUlred to prove nor only t'hat it wa,; not ncgllgent' (.1'(-'1.;',emfIN' v 1Vi/dtlower Estates J)ev.'l'., supra), but' also that the proposed 1l1demnitor was n,:::spoINbk for neglIgence that contributed t'o the accident or, In thc absence of any negligence, had the authOrity to dll"l'Ct',supervise, and control the work glving rise to the injury (see, Belledetto v Carrera Rea/~l' Corp., 32 A[)Jd )-;74, 822 NYS2d 542 [2d Dept 2006], Mid-Valley Oil Co, v Hughes Network .))!s., supm; see ({/so, NelsoJl 1-' Ite/sea (,'(/1 Rea/fcV, Ii) AD3d 8315, 796 NYS2d 646 [2d Dept 2005'1) 1le["(::, he C t evidence dClll0l1stratcs that Frame to Fl1mh controlled and directed the performance of the decGclcnt\ work and t~lI1ed to protect h1I11fi-Ollltbe foreseeable l"lsks of the acc](!ent \-vlllCh occurred (see, Kirkby I' Challtauqua !tISf., 178 AD2d 929, 578 NYS2d 797 [4th Dept 1991]). In OppOSitIOn, Frame to hlll,;ll 1~1I to submit proof from wbicb it could be determined that SlIverlllling's Iiabi lity to plallltdT \Va:, led anything but VIcarious Sal t has not estab Iished a prima /ilcie enti tlement to summary .i uclgment on its th ird-pany complaillt ag,llnst (i-I for contractual inclemlllfication. A party is entitled to contractuallildemniticalion when t'he inten(lon to indelllnify is "clearly Implied fi·om the language and purposes urthe entire ;lgn:clllcilt ane! the surroLlndlllg circumstances" (see, Torres v LPE Laud Dev. & CousTr., S/ljJl"II ; l(fllda I' TLH I4() Pen~vSf., 47 AD3d 743, 849 NYS2d 658 [2008])_ The cOlltrdctu,Ji lIH.!Cll1nil'lc'ltll)1l prOVISion ,It issuc here is cOllti.llned in a c01llTaCl betwcen Salt and C)-I dated December 20, 2006. It provides, 111 perllllcnt parr that '"r:tJo lhe fullest extent permitted by law, [CJ-l'I shall defcnd, IlHkl11111fy and hold harmless Salt Construction Corp., its atTiliates, subsidiaries, threctors, officers, e11lploYl'cs, agents, and their represcntal1VCS from and against all claH1ls, damages, losses and expenses ;lttnblilabic to, resulting from, or arising out of [G-I 's] otieratiolls performed for Salt Consrructlon Corp .. caused 111 ,vhole or In part by <lny act or omISSIon of[Ci- I.l, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by thcln. UI~1l1YOl1l' whuse acts any of lhem may be liable, regardless of whether or not it is caused in part by S:lli I'or COI1Sll-UC!IUn orp., its affiliates, subsidiaries, dJrcctors, officers, employees, agents, and Iheir C rcprt'selltltives.·' Here, it is clcar that thc contract requIres a predicate linding that (j- J '5 neglIgent opcr,ltlollS cduscd the barll1111 order fix inc!cl1lnil-ication to run '-I.-om C- I to Salt. The second PUrtIC)!1 ur the prOVISIOn, whIch provides for ll1demndication for illJUl"lCSwhIch may have beel1 caused by Salt's Ilcgllgcnce, is VOid and uncnt()fceable pursuant' to General Obl1gatlons Law ~5-32:2 I (.I'C(-, Itri Hl'ick & Concrete Corp. J' Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 89 NY2d 786, 658 NYS2d 903 IISl97]; Kiflfley I! G. ,,1< Lis!; Co, Inc., 7() NY2d 215, 557 NYS2d 283 [J 990])_ As there has been a tindlllg that G-I did nol control the lllt';1I1Sor methods by whIch thc dcccdent performed his work and thus was norliabk to plallllllTill ncgllgence or for VIolatIng Labor Law ~200, the predicate rcqulrement 1'01' 11dcllll1ltic:ltIOll l I'rolll Ci-l to Salt has 110tbeen proven. Thercil)]"c, Salt's motion for summary judgment agalll:O;1' Cl-l sl'cklng cOlltractu:\1 intielllllil-icatioll is denied. Dated: December 19.201 I FINAl. DISPOSITION

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.