Summary
In Bove, where the plaintiff fell into an unlit elevator shaft, the Court held that summary judgment on the plaintiffs Labor Law § 241(6) claim was appropriate against two contractors "whose contractual obligations with [the property owner] required them, respectively, to provide adequate temporary lighting and safety barriers for the elevator shaft, making them statutory 'agents'" (181 AD2d at 427-428).
Summary of this case from Molloy v. City of N.Y.Opinion
March 5, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.).
Plaintiff, an employee of Northeast, a tile installer, commenced this action under Labor Law § 241 (5) and (6) to recover damages for personal injuries sustained when he allegedly fell into an unguarded and unlit elevator shaft during the rehabilitation of premises owned by NYCHA.
The IAS court properly granted summary judgment against NYCHA, as the owner of premises has a nondelegable duty, irrespective of its control or supervision over a worksite (Allen v Cloutier Constr. Corp., 44 N.Y.2d 290, rearg denied 45 N.Y.2d 776), and against Gilston and Zaffuto as contractors whose contractual obligations with NYCHA required them, respectively, to provide adequate temporary lighting and safety barriers for the elevator shaft, making them statutory "agents" within the purview of the Labor Law (see, Russin v Picciano Son, 54 N.Y.2d 311). There exist, however, material issues of fact concerning the level of on-site supervisory control exercised by NYCHA personnel on matters pertaining to lighting and elevator shaft safety sufficient to preclude the grant of NYCHA's cross-motion for summary judgment against Gilston and Zaffuto on its cross claims for indemnity. Finally, the IAS court properly granted, sua sponte, summary judgment to Northeast dismissing the third-party complaint since no evidentiary proof was submitted to demonstrate its liability.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Wallach and Ross, JJ.