From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Benefield v. Halmar Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 27, 1999
264 A.D.2d 794 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted June 22, 1999

September 27, 1999

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant third-party plaintiff, Halmar Corporation appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), dated August 12, 1998, as (1) denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's causes of action based on common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200, (2) denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of indemnification, and (3) granted the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on his cause of action under Labor Law § 240(1).

Kelly and Meenagh, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Thomas F. Kelly III of counsel), for defendant third-party plaintiff-appellant.

Sacks Sacks, New York, N.Y. (Scott N. Singer of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.

Melito Adolfsen, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Ignatius John Melito and Steven I. Lewbel of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent.

WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by (1) deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the appellant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's causes of action based on common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion, and (2) deleting the provision thereof granting the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on his cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) and substituting therefor a provision denying the cross motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

It is well settled that where the alleged defect or dangerous condition arises from a subcontractor's own methods in performing the work, no liability attaches to the general contractor either under the common law or under Labor Law § 200 ( see, Lombardi v. Stout, 80 N.Y.2d 290). The accident here was caused by the manner in which the plaintiff was instructed to perform his work by the subcontractor, his employer. Accordingly, the causes of action based on common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 should have been dismissed.

The plaintiff further failed to establish that, as a matter of law, the defendant violated Labor Law § 240(1). Where a plaintiff is injured in a fall from a ladder, which is not otherwise shown to be defective, the issue of whether the ladder provided the plaintiff with the proper protection required under this statute is a question of fact for the jury ( see, Rice v. PCM Dev. Agency Co., 230 A.D.2d 898; Romano v. Hotel Carlyle Owners Corp., 226 A.D.2d 441). Therefore, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on his cause of action under Labor Law § 240(1).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.

THOMPSON, J.P., FRIEDMANN, SCHMIDT, and SMITH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Benefield v. Halmar Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 27, 1999
264 A.D.2d 794 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Benefield v. Halmar Corporation

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTIAN P. BENEFIELD, plaintiff-respondent, v. HALMAR CORPORATION…

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

Date published: Sep 27, 1999

Citations

264 A.D.2d 794 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
695 N.Y.S.2d 394

Citing Cases

Zou v. T&S Home Improvement Inc.

To be held liable pursuant to Labor Law § 200 or the common law in a case such as this, where the claim…

Ung Jin Kim v. Twin Deer Grp., LLC.

The cross-motion by plaintiffs for summary judgment in their favor is denied. Where, as here, an employee is…