From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wagner v. Barney Skanska Constr. Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 10, 2001
289 A.D.2d 324 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

2000-06638

Argued October 3, 2001.

December 10, 2001.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated April 3, 2000, as denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law 240(1), and the defendant third-party plaintiff separately appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of the same order as denied its cross motion for partial summary judgment on its third-party complaint for contractual and common-law indemnification.

RAPPAPORT, GLASS, GREEN, LEVINE, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (MICHAEL S. LEVINE of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.

MULHOLLAND, MINION ROE, Williston Park, N.Y. (JOHN A. BEYRER of counsel), for defendant third-party plaintiff-appellant-respondent.

ABRAMS, GORELICK, FRIEDMAN JACOBSON, P.C., New York, N.Y. (GLENN A. JACOBSON of counsel), for third-party defendant-respondent.

Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the third-party defendant payable by the defendant third-party plaintiff.

To establish a prima facie case of liability under Labor Law — 240(1), a plaintiff must establish that "the statute was violated and that this violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries" (Sprague v. Peckham Materials Corp., 240 A.D.2d 392, 393). On their motion for summary judgment, the plaintiffs failed to establish that they are entitled to summary judgment under Labor Law — 240(1) because they could not establish as a matter of law that (1) that provision was violated, and (2) that the injured plaintiff's actions were not the sole proximate cause of the accident (see, Weininger v. Hagedorn Co., 91 N.Y.2d 958). Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied that motion.

The Supreme Court also properly denied the motion of the defendant third-party plaintiff for summary judgment on its indemnification claims, because it failed to establish as a matter of law that it was free of fault in the happening of the accident (see, Terranova v. City of New York, 197 A.D.2d 402; La Lima v. Epstein, 143 A.D.2d 886).

KRAUSMAN, J.P., S. MILLER, FRIEDMANN and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Wagner v. Barney Skanska Constr. Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 10, 2001
289 A.D.2d 324 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Wagner v. Barney Skanska Constr. Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JOHN WAGNER, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BARNEY SKANSKA CONSTRUCTION…

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

Date published: Dec 10, 2001

Citations

289 A.D.2d 324 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
734 N.Y.S.2d 489

Citing Cases

Bredow v. CVS Pharmacy

Here, CVS offered no proof to controvert the plaintiff's claim that it was negligent in failing to design the…

Boguszewski v. Solo Salon & Spa

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied. In order to establish…