Opinion
January 14, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs payable to the plaintiff.
The third-party defendant employer claims that the defendant, the general contractor on the construction site where the plaintiff employee was injured as a result of alleged violations of Labor Law § 240, was not entitled to indemnification by it on the theory that such an award would contravene the policies and provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. We disagree. An employee's right of recovery against a general contractor predicated on the liability imposed by Labor Law § 240 is in no way affected by the Workers' Compensation Law, absent an employer-employee or coemployee-employee relationship (see, Russo v Hilman, 146 A.D.2d 690, 691; Lindner v Kew Realty Co., 113 A.D.2d 36). It therefore follows that a general contractor should not be precluded from seeking indemnification against an employer by virtue of the Workers' Compensation Law (see, Russo v Hilman, supra). Finally, we find that the award of $50,000 for past pain, suffering and disability, and $100,000 for future pain, suffering and disability was not excessive (see, Stern v Calzado, 163 A.D.2d 299; Rivera v City of New York, 160 A.D.2d 985). Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Lawrence and O'Brien, JJ., concur.